Hoshizaki America v. Blue Air FSE — ITC Violation Found on Ice Machine Patents
Hoshizaki America, Inc. brought a Section 337 complaint at the US International Trade Commission against Blue Air FSE, LLC, asserting three patents covering ice cube evaporator plate assemblies and ice making machines. After 582 days, ALJ Clark Cheney found a violation — a judgment on the merits that typically triggers exclusion order remedies at the ITC.
Hoshizaki’s ITC Gambit: Three Ice Machine Patents, One Decisive Finding
Hoshizaki America, Inc., the US arm of Japanese commercial refrigeration giant Hoshizaki Corporation, filed a Section 337 complaint at the United States International Trade Commission on July 12, 2023, targeting Blue Air FSE, LLC. The complaint alleged infringement of three US patents — US10113785B2, US10458692B2, and US10107538B2 — all directed to ice cube evaporator plate assemblies and ice making machine technology. The ITC, rather than a federal district court, was chosen as the forum, consistent with a strategy to seek import exclusion remedies.
Administrative Law Judge Clark Cheney issued a finding of violation on February 13, 2025 — 582 days after filing — with the basis of termination recorded as judgment on the merits for the plaintiff. At the ITC, a violation finding on Section 337 grounds typically precedes a Commission review that can result in a limited exclusion order barring importation of infringing goods, and/or a cease-and-desist order directed at the domestic respondent. The public record does not yet confirm which specific remedial orders were ultimately entered.
The 582-day duration aligns with standard ITC Section 337 investigation timelines, suggesting the case proceeded without unusual procedural disruption. Blue Air FSE, a commercial refrigeration equipment supplier, now faces the commercial and operational consequences of an adverse ITC violation finding. The three asserted patents span multiple application generations, suggesting Hoshizaki pursued a layered assertion strategy designed to cover successive iterations of the evaporator technology and reduce design-around options for competitors.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 582 days
582 days from filing to close — consistent with typical ITC Section 337 investigation timelines of 15–18 months
ITC violation found: what the Section 337 ruling means for both parties
Section 337 violation: what ‘judgment on the merits’ means at the ITC
A Section 337 violation finding by an ALJ on the merits means the respondent’s conduct — importing or selling products that infringe valid US patents — has been adjudicated as unlawful. The finding triggers a Commission review phase where the full ITC may adopt, modify, or reverse the ALJ’s determination and decide on remedies including limited exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders. Unlike district court damages, ITC remedies are prospective and trade-focused.
Merits violation establishedHoshizaki secures a pathway to import exclusion on core evaporator IP
A violation finding in Hoshizaki’s favour confirms the asserted patents are both valid and infringed in the ITC’s view, strengthening their enforceability posture across all three patents. Hoshizaki is positioned to obtain a limited exclusion order blocking Blue Air FSE’s infringing ice machine imports. This outcome also signals to other market participants that Hoshizaki will actively enforce this patent family, raising the barrier to competitive entry in the ice maker evaporator segment.
Exclusion order pathway openBlue Air FSE faces import ban risk and must reassess its product supply chain
An adverse ITC violation finding exposes Blue Air FSE to a limited exclusion order that would bar importation of the infringing ice making machines into the United States. A cease-and-desist order against domestic sales of existing inventory is also possible. Blue Air FSE’s options include Commission-level appeal, Federal Circuit review, seeking a Presidential review (rare), or pursuing design-around alternatives and licensing negotiations with Hoshizaki.
Import exclusion risk confirmedA strengthened IP perimeter raises the cost of competing with Hoshizaki in ice making
The ITC violation finding, covering three patents across multiple patent generations on evaporator plate technology, signals that Hoshizaki’s ice machine IP forms a durable competitive moat. Competitors and importers of commercial ice equipment should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. The layered assertion — spanning applications US14/022887, US15/353833, and US16/172042 — suggests the patent family was built to close design-around pathways, complicating freedom-to-operate for the broader commercial refrigeration sector.
Elevated FTO risk for ice equipmentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hoshizaki America, Inc. | Company | Commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturer — holder of US10113785B2, US10458692B2, and US10107538B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Blue Air FSE, LLC | Company | Commercial foodservice equipment supplier accused of importing infringing ice making machinesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul M. Bartkowski | Attorney | Counsel for Hoshizaki America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bartkowski PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Hoshizaki America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric and Namrow | Attorney | Counsel for Blue Air FSE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Blue Air FSE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Clark Cheney | Judge | United States International Trade CommissionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict notation ‘Participant Disposition: Violation Found’ reflects the ITC’s adjudicatory outcome that Blue Air FSE’s importation and sale of the identified ice making machine products constitutes a Section 337 violation. Recorded as judgment on the merits for the plaintiff, this is not a procedural or consent-based termination — the ALJ applied substantive patent law to the evidence. For Hoshizaki, the finding validates all three asserted patents as enforceable. For Blue Air FSE, it triggers the Commission remedy phase where exclusion and cease-and-desist orders are determined.
US10113785B2, US10458692B2 & US10107538B2 — Ice Cube Evaporator Plate Technology
The three asserted patents — US10113785B2 (App. No. US15/353833), US10458692B2 (App. No. US16/172042), and US10107538B2 (App. No. US14/022887) — cover the design and construction of ice cube evaporator plate assemblies and ice making machines. Application No. US14/022887 is the earliest in the group, suggesting US10107538B2 anchors the foundational claims, with the later applications potentially covering improvements or variant implementations. The technology domain — evaporator plate geometry and heat exchange configuration in commercial ice makers — sits at the core of commercial refrigeration product differentiation.
For the commercial ice machine market, evaporator plate design is a primary engineering variable determining cube quality, production efficiency, and energy consumption. Hoshizaki’s multi-patent assertion across three application generations suggests a prosecution strategy designed to capture both the core evaporator architecture and iterative design improvements. Competitors in the commercial ice equipment segment — particularly those sourcing products from overseas manufacturers — face a validated patent cluster that now carries ITC enforcement history, materially raising the risk profile of any competing evaporator design.
Should you run an FTO against US10113785B2, US10458692B2, and US10107538B2?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing commercial ice making machines — particularly those incorporating ice cube evaporator plate assemblies — should treat these three Hoshizaki patents as live FTO risks following the ITC violation finding. The ruling is not limited to Blue Air FSE: a Commission exclusion order can bind all importers of covered articles regardless of whether they were named respondents. OEMs, distributors, and private-label suppliers in the commercial refrigeration space should conduct claim-mapping exercises before their next product cycle.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses against US10113785B2, US10458692B2, and US10107538B2, mapping independent claims against specific product configurations. Eureka also surfaces related family members, prosecution history, and prior art landscapes, helping identify whether design-around options exist across the full patent cluster — not just the asserted grants.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10113785B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ITC Section 337 Cases Involving Commercial Refrigeration & Ice Machine Patents
Explore ITC Section 337 investigations and federal patent cases involving commercial ice making, refrigeration equipment, and evaporator plate technology decided at the USITC.
What this case signals for the commercial ice machine IP landscape
Hoshizaki’s ITC win on three evaporator patents sets a high-visibility enforcement precedent for the commercial refrigeration sector.
ITC forum selection signals Hoshizaki’s intent to target the import channel
Filing at the ITC rather than district court is a deliberate tactical choice. It prioritises speed, avoids multi-year district court schedules, and — critically — targets the importation of infringing goods rather than post-sale damages. For any company sourcing commercial ice machines from overseas manufacturers, this case is a direct signal that Hoshizaki views the supply chain as the enforcement target.
Three-patent assertion across application generations closes design-around space
Hoshizaki asserted patents drawn from three separate application families filed years apart. This layered strategy is consistent with a deliberate prosecution approach to ensure that successive product designs remain covered. Competitors considering product modifications or alternative evaporator configurations should conduct claim-level analysis across all three patents before assuming any design freedom exists.
Hoshizaki v Blue — key questions answered
ALJ Clark Cheney found a Section 337 violation against Blue Air FSE, LLC on the merits, ruling in favour of Hoshizaki America on all three asserted patents covering ice cube evaporator plate assemblies. The case closed February 13, 2025, after 582 days, with judgment on the merits for the plaintiff.
Hoshizaki America asserted three US patents: US10113785B2 (App. No. US15/353833), US10458692B2 (App. No. US16/172042), and US10107538B2 (App. No. US14/022887). All three patents cover ice cube evaporator plate assemblies and ice making machine technology.
A violation finding on the merits exposes Blue Air FSE to ITC Commission-level remedies including a limited exclusion order barring importation of infringing ice machines into the US and a potential cease-and-desist order for domestic sales. Blue Air FSE may seek Commission review, Federal Circuit appeal, or pursue licensing or design-around strategies.
Potentially yes. ITC limited exclusion orders generally apply to the named respondent, but the Commission can issue general exclusion orders covering all importers of infringing articles. Even a limited exclusion order creates precedent that strengthens Hoshizaki’s enforcement position against other market participants importing similar evaporator technology.
The ITC does not award monetary damages but can issue exclusion orders blocking imports and cease-and-desist orders. Proceedings are typically faster than district court litigation — this case closed in 582 days, consistent with ITC norms. The ITC forum is strategically suited to targeting imported products at the border, making it Hoshizaki’s chosen vehicle to address Blue Air FSE’s imported ice making machines.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.