Glacio Inc. Wins Default Judgment: Design Patents Invalidated in Ice Mold Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Glacio Inc. v. Dongguan Sutuo Industrial Co., Ltd. |
| Case Number | 2:22-cv-00029 (E.D. Wash.) |
| Court | Eastern District of Washington |
| Duration | Feb 2022 – Apr 2024 2 years 2 months |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Win — Design Patents Invalidated ($242K Award) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Glacio’s Combo Mold and Four Sphere Mold products |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
U.S.-based consumer goods company selling kitchen and beverage accessories, including specialty ice mold products, through e-commerce platforms including Amazon.
🛡️ Defendant
Chinese manufacturing company holding U.S. design patents on ice mold designs.
Patents at Issue & Grounds for Invalidity
This case involved two design patents covering ornamental designs for ice mold products. Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.
- • US D918,970 — Ornamental design for ice mold products (Application No. 29/753,155)
- • US D931,914 — Ornamental design for ice mold products (Application No. 29/753,138)
The court ultimately declared both patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), finding the claimed designs were anticipated by prior art that predated Dongguan Sutuo’s patent applications.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your consumer product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
Chief Judge Mary K. Dimke entered a default judgment, finding Glacio’s Combo Mold and Four Sphere Mold products did not infringe Dongguan Sutuo’s design patents. Crucially, the court declared Design Patent Nos. D918,970 and D931,914 **invalid** under **35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)** (anticipation by prior art). The judgment awarded Glacio Inc. **$222,637.04** in damages, **$19,893.00** in attorneys’ fees, and **$402.00** in costs, totaling approximately **$242,932.04**.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s invalidity finding under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is legally significant. This provision invalidates a patent when the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In essence, Glacio successfully demonstrated that the ornamental designs claimed in D918,970 and D931,914 were anticipated by prior art that predated Dongguan Sutuo’s patent applications.
Because this judgment was entered by **default** due to Dongguan Sutuo’s failure to meaningfully participate, the court accepted Glacio’s well-pleaded allegations and evidentiary submissions as true. This procedural context highlights the importance of proactive litigation and strong initial arguments, even when a defendant fails to engage.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer product design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related prior art in the ice mold design space
- Analyze which companies are active in similar design patents
- Understand the nuances of § 102(a)(1) challenges
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Prior art in ice mold designs
2 Patents Invalidated
In ice mold product space
Proactive Strategy
Key for e-commerce brands
✅ Key Takeaways
Declaratory judgment actions are effective offensive tools when clients face design patent assertions.
Search related case law →§ 102(a)(1) anticipation provides a clean invalidity argument when strong single prior art references exist.
Explore precedents →Securing both invalidity and non-infringement rulings creates layered appellate protection for your clients.
Analyze litigation strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Design Patent Nos. D918,970 (App. No. 29/753,155) and D931,914 (App. No. 29/753,138), both covering ornamental ice mold designs.
The court declared both patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), finding the claimed designs were anticipated by prior art predating the patents’ effective filing dates.
The ruling reinforces that proactive declaratory judgment strategies, combined with prior art challenges, can effectively neutralize design patent assertions — particularly those targeting U.S. e-commerce sellers.
Companies can protect themselves by conducting freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis before finalizing product aesthetics, documenting design evolution thoroughly, considering design-around strategies for high-risk design elements, and filing their own design patents early in the product development cycle. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO tools help R&D and IP teams identify potentially blocking design patents before products go to market.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington – Case 2:22-cv-00029
- U.S. Patent No. D918,970 (Google Patents)
- U.S. Patent No. D931,914 (Google Patents)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 102
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.