Snogo LLC v. EZ Go LLC: Design Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Snogo, LLC filed suit against EZ Go, LLC in the Southern District of Florida in September 2023, asserting design patent USD943913S covering its EZ Bumps Snogo Straws product. After 492 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in January 2025, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Design Patent Standoff Over Snogo Straws Ends at the Courthouse Door
On September 11, 2023, Snogo, LLC filed an infringement action against EZ Go, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting design patent USD943913S — an ornamental design patent covering its EZ Bumps Snogo Straws product. The complaint alleged that EZ Go’s product line infringed the protected aesthetic design of Snogo’s straw. The case was docketed as 0:23-cv-61743 and proceeded through the Southern District’s pretrial pipeline for the better part of two years.
On January 14, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 55), and the court promptly ordered the case closed. The dismissal with prejudice means Snogo is permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims against EZ Go arising from the same accused product. Critically, neither party recovered fees or costs — the court ordered each side to bear its own litigation expenses, a neutral cost allocation that typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than a clear win for either party.
The 492-day duration is notable for a case that ultimately resolved without trial or a published merits ruling. The length suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery and likely substantive settlement negotiations before reaching terms. The public record does not disclose the specific commercial terms — if any consideration changed hands — leaving open whether this reflects a licensing arrangement, a business accommodation, or a simple mutual decision to cease litigation. The with-prejudice designation, however, gives EZ Go durable protection against re-litigation on these specific claims.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 492 days
492 days — longer than the median S.D. Florida patent case, suggesting substantive negotiation before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any future refiling on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Snogo, LLC cannot refile this infringement action against EZ Go, LLC based on patent USD943913S and the same accused product. The joint stipulation signals that both parties consented to this permanent closure — distinguishing it from a unilateral voluntary dismissal.
Permanent bar on re-litigationSnogo sacrifices future claims but retains the design patent
Snogo, LLC retains ownership of USD943913S and may still enforce it against third parties. However, the with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future action against EZ Go on these specific claims. Whether Snogo extracted any commercial concession — a licensing fee, product redesign, or market exit commitment — is not disclosed in the public record. The symmetric cost ruling suggests neither party claimed a clear victory.
Patent intact; EZ Go claim extinguishedEZ Go gains permanent protection from Snogo’s design patent claims
EZ Go, LLC exits litigation without a court finding of infringement and without a fee award against it. The with-prejudice dismissal gives EZ Go durable protection: Snogo cannot revive this specific infringement action. EZ Go’s exposure going forward is limited to potential new claims tied to different patent rights or materially different products — not the claims litigated here.
No infringement finding; claims extinguishedDesign patent enforcement in consumer goods: a cautionary cost calculus
This case illustrates the litigation economics of design patent enforcement in the consumer goods space. With each party bearing its own costs after 492 days, both sides absorbed significant legal spend without a public merits ruling. For companies operating in adjacent straw or single-use consumer product markets, the case signals that design patent holders are willing to pursue infringement actions — but that negotiated resolution before trial remains the dominant outcome.
Settlement risk elevated in design patent disputesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Snogo, LLC | Company | Consumer goods company — holder of design patent USD943913S covering EZ Bumps Snogo StrawsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | EZ Go, LLC | Company | EZ Go, LLC — accused of infringing the ornamental design of Snogo’s straw productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Charles Wolfe | Attorney | Counsel for Snogo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stewart D. Cables | Attorney | Counsel for Snogo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hassan + Cables, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Snogo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wolfe Law Miami, PA | Law Firm | Representing Snogo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alex Spizz | Attorney | Counsel for EZ Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Angelica Tamara Aminova | Attorney | Counsel for EZ Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brad Elliott Kelsky | Attorney | Counsel for EZ Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelsky Law, P.A. | Law Firm | Representing EZ Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Tarter, Krinsky & Drogin LLP | Law Firm | Representing EZ Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, confirming a dismissal with prejudice by mutual consent. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it carries res judicata effect, permanently extinguishing Snogo’s right to reassert USD943913S infringement claims against EZ Go on these facts. The symmetric cost allocation — each party bears its own fees — is a neutral disposition that neither rewards nor penalises either litigant, consistent with a privately negotiated resolution rather than a litigated outcome.
USD943913S — Ornamental Design for EZ Bumps Snogo Straws
USD943913S is a United States design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the EZ Bumps Snogo Straws product, filed under application number US29/746638. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual and ornamental characteristics of a functional item — not its utility. Protection is determined by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. The patent’s scope is defined entirely by its drawings, making the visual presentation of the straw’s distinctive bump or ridge features central to any infringement analysis.
In the novelty and single-use consumer product market — where brand identity is often communicated through distinctive product shapes and aesthetics — design patents like USD943913S serve as a meaningful competitive moat. The EZ Bumps designation suggests a distinctive textured or ridged straw profile that Snogo has sought to protect from imitation. For competitors manufacturing or sourcing straw products with similar ornamental features, this patent represents ongoing enforcement risk: the dismissal resolves only the dispute with EZ Go and leaves Snogo’s enforcement rights against the broader market fully intact.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD943913S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing novelty straws or similarly designed single-use consumer products with ornamental bump, ridge, or textured features should consider a freedom-to-operate review against USD943913S. The patent remains active and enforceable. The resolution of Snogo v. EZ Go does not reduce the risk for third parties — it may, in fact, signal that Snogo is an active enforcer willing to sustain litigation through extended proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map the visual claim scope of USD943913S against their own product designs, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and benchmark against related design patent families. Eureka’s design patent analysis tools surface ornamental similarity risks before product launch — reducing the likelihood of receiving a cease-and-desist after go-to-market investment has been committed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0943913S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in S.D. Florida Consumer Goods
Cases involving design patent enforcement over consumer product ornamental features in the Southern District of Florida, resolved by joint stipulation or settlement.
What this case signals for the consumer goods design patent landscape
Design patent litigation over consumer products is commercially disruptive even when it resolves short of trial — as this 492-day case demonstrates.
Design patents on consumer products carry real enforcement credibility
Snogo’s willingness to litigate USD943913S for nearly 17 months signals that design patent holders in the consumer goods space — including straw and single-use product categories — will commit litigation resources to protect ornamental IP. Competitors and adjacent product makers should assess their design exposure proactively, not reactively.
A mutual cost-bearing dismissal typically signals a negotiated commercial resolution
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and absorb their own costs, it is consistent with a negotiated settlement — whether financial, operational, or both. The public record discloses no terms, but the symmetric outcome suggests neither party surrendered unconditionally. This pattern is common in SME design patent disputes where commercial relationships or market dynamics drive resolution.
Snogo v EZ — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Snogo’s right to sue EZ Go again on the same claims under USD943913S. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties. Snogo retains all enforcement rights outside of this specific dispute with EZ Go.
USD943913S protects the ornamental design of the EZ Bumps Snogo Straws product, filed under U.S. application number 29/746638. Design patents cover the visual appearance of a product — not its functional features — so the scope is defined by the patent’s drawings depicting the straw’s distinctive ornamental characteristics.
The court ordered symmetric cost allocation — each party bears its own fees and costs — reflecting the terms of the parties’ joint stipulation. This neutral cost disposition is typical where parties negotiate a private resolution. It does not indicate a finding of bad faith or an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The case lasted 492 days, from September 11, 2023 to January 15, 2025. This duration — spanning more than 16 months without reaching trial — is consistent with a case that progressed through early discovery and pretrial proceedings before the parties negotiated a resolution. It suggests substantive engagement rather than an immediate walkaway.
No. The dismissal binds only Snogo and EZ Go. USD943913S remains enforceable, and Snogo retains the right to assert it against any other party whose products allegedly infringe the ornamental design. Companies with visually similar straw products should assess their FTO position against this patent independently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.