Floorazzo Tile vs. Nurazzo: Terrazzo Patent Infringement Dismissed

In a case that underscores the strategic complexity of tile and flooring patent litigation, Floorazzo Tile, LLC v. Nurazzo, LLC (Case No. 4:25-cv-00193) concluded with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice after 237 days before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Filed on July 16, 2025, and closed on March 10, 2026, the case centered on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. US8033079B2, directed to terrazzo tile technology, with Nurazzo’s terrazzo tile products named as the accused products.

Although the case ended without a final adjudication on the merits, its resolution carries meaningful signals for IP professionals, patent litigators, and manufacturers operating in the architectural flooring and construction materials space. Voluntary dismissals of this nature often reflect confidential settlements, licensing agreements, or strategic pivots — each carrying distinct implications for how competitors and counsel approach terrazzo tile patent infringement risk going forward.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved **U.S. Patent No. US8033079B2** (Application No. US12/059531), covering innovations in terrazzo tile design or fabrication methodology. While the specific independent claims are detailed in the USPTO record, the patent broadly concerns structural or compositional advances in terrazzo tile products.

• • US8033079B2 — Terrazzo tile construction and manufacturing

The Accused Product

Nurazzo’s terrazzo tiles formed the basis of the infringement allegations. The commercial relevance is significant: terrazzo tiles are specified in high-value architectural projects — airports, hotels, institutional buildings — meaning even a modest market participant can represent substantial revenue at stake in an infringement dispute.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff (Floorazzo Tile, LLC): Attorneys Granison Eader, Kelsey Nix, Steven Chase Parker from Conway Eader LLLP; Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP.

Defendant (Nurazzo, LLC): Attorneys Adam S. Baldridge, Lea Hall Speed, Tyler Preston Bishop from Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. (multiple offices). Baker Donelson’s multi-office representation reflects the firm’s coordinated national IP litigation infrastructure and signals a well-resourced defense posture from the outset.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, a venue with active IP dockets serving Atlanta’s robust commercial litigation ecosystem. Chief Judge William M. Ray, II presided over the matter, bringing federal district court oversight to what remained a first-instance proceeding throughout its lifecycle.

At 237 days, the case resolved relatively quickly by federal patent litigation standards, where disputes commonly extend 2–4 years through trial. This accelerated timeline — closing before any reported claim construction hearing or summary judgment ruling — strongly suggests that pre-trial dynamics, including early settlement discussions or licensing negotiations, drove the resolution rather than substantive judicial determinations on validity or infringement.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On March 10, 2026, Floorazzo Tile, LLC filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This procedural mechanism allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss an action before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — without court approval and without prejudice to refiling.

No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was issued. The case terminated solely on the plaintiff’s initiative.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a legally significant choice. Key observations:

• Timing and Unilateral Right: Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits dismissal as of right only before the opposing party files an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The fact that Floorazzo exercised this right — rather than proceeding to claim construction or filing a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — suggests the case was resolved at an early procedural stage, before substantive litigation costs fully escalated.
• “Without Prejudice” Designation: Critically, dismissal without prejudice preserves Floorazzo’s right to refile the same infringement claims. This is not a concession that the patent is invalid or that Nurazzo did not infringe. It means the dispute could reemerge, particularly if a licensing arrangement is later breached or negotiations fail.
• Absence of Disclosed Settlement Terms: No settlement amount, licensing fee, or consent judgment appears in the public record. This pattern is consistent with confidential licensing agreements — a common resolution pathway in manufacturing patent disputes where both parties prefer commercial resolution over protracted litigation.

Legal Significance

From a doctrinal standpoint, this case generated no published opinions on claim construction, patent validity, or infringement of US8033079B2. Patent litigators should note:

• No precedential value was established regarding terrazzo tile patent claims.
• The “without prejudice” dismissal leaves open the question of whether Nurazzo’s products actually infringe the asserted claims — a question that remains unanswered in the public record.
• The case nonetheless establishes that US8033079B2 has been actively asserted in litigation, which is relevant to any competitor conducting freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis in this space.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal preserves maximum optionality. If Floorazzo secured a licensing agreement, it avoided costly litigation while monetizing its IP. If negotiations are ongoing, the threat of refiling maintains leverage. This strategy — file, engage, dismiss without prejudice — is an efficient enforcement tool for smaller patent holders against single competitors.

For Accused Infringers: Baker Donelson’s early engagement likely positioned Nurazzo favorably in any negotiation. Companies facing infringement claims should retain experienced IP counsel immediately, conduct independent claim mapping of asserted patents, and assess invalidity arguments in parallel with settlement discussions.

For R&D Teams: The assertion of US8033079B2 in active litigation signals that terrazzo tile manufacturing processes and compositions are a contested IP landscape. Engineering teams should conduct FTO analyses before commercializing products in this category.