`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the matter of:
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT’S MOTION (1) TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF
`INVESTIGATION TO ADD U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D877,214
`AND (2) EXTEND THE TARGET DATE BY ONE MONTH
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1), Complainant Cricut, Inc. (“Cricut”)
`
`respectfully submits this motion for leave to amend the Complaint and the Notice of Investigation
`
`to add an allegation of infringement by Respondents Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co., Ltd. and
`
`Guangdong Rongtu Technology Co., Ltd., and prospective Respondent HK Sijiu International
`
`Share Co., Ltd.1 (collectively, “HTVRont”) of the single claim of United States Design Patent No.
`
`D877,214 (the “D214 Patent”) based on HTVRont’s newly released LOKLiK iCraft cutting
`
`machine (the “LOKLiK iCraft”).
`
`As set forth below, good cause exists for this amendment because the LOKLiK iCraft had
`
`not been sold for importation, imported, or sold after importation into the United States prior to
`
`institution of this Investigation. This Investigation is in the early phases and adding the D214
`
`Patent to this Investigation, rather than conducting a separate investigation, would be more
`
`efficient for the Commission and the parties. Indeed, HTVRont does not oppose the motion
`
`provided Cricut requests a one-month extension to the Target Date.
`
`
`1 Complainant previously filed an unopposed motion to amend the complaint to add HK Sijiu International Share
`Co., Ltd. as one of the HTVRont respondents. That motion remains pending.
`
`1
`
`

`

`A proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit A reflecting amendments
`
`in redline, and proposed new and amended exhibits to the Complaint are attached as Exhibits B-J.
`
`Accordingly, Complainant requests the Chief Administrative Law Judge grant this motion
`
`and allow the amendment to the Complaint and Notice of Institution of Investigation to add the
`
`D214 Patent and to extend the Target Date by one month.
`
`Ground Rule 5.1 Certification
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 5.1, Complainant certifies that before filing this motion, counsel
`
`for Cricut made a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve this matter with the other parties prior to
`
`filing this motion. On Friday, January 31, Complainant, HTVRont, and the Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) held a meet and confer to discuss this motion. On Monday, February
`
`3, HTVRont indicated that it does not oppose this motion with the Target Date request indicated
`
`above. The Staff will take a position after reviewing the motion. SainStore Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`has been terminated from the Investigation after entering a consent order. Respondents LiPing
`
`Zhan, Shanghai Sishun E-commerce Co., Ltd., Bozhou Wanxingyu Technology Co. Ltd., and
`
`Bozhou Zhongdaxiang Technology Co., Ltd. have not appeared in the Investigation.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This motion arises in response to HTVRont’s actions after this Investigation commenced.
`
`Specifically, this Investigation presently concerns, inter alia, Cricut’s contention that HTVRont
`
`copied Cricut’s “Explore” cutting machines, which are covered by United States Design Patent
`
`No. D1,029,090 (the “D090 Patent”). One month into this Investigation, HTVRont introduced a
`
`new product, the LOKLiK iCraft. In Cricut’s view, this new product copies the design of Cricut’s
`
`newer “Maker” cutting machines, covered by the D214 Patent. Accordingly, Cricut seeks to
`
`amend the complaint to add the single claim from the D214 Patent. This LOKLiK iCraft was
`
`announced by HTVRont after Cricut’s complaint was filed, and it appears to have been first
`
`2
`
`

`

`imported and sold in the United States at some point between January 9 and January 22, 2025.
`
`Given the early stages of this Investigation, it will be more efficient for the Commission and the
`
`parties to address infringement of the D214 Patent by HTVRont’s new design in the current
`
`Investigation, rather than through a separate investigation. To avoid any prejudice to HTVRont,
`
`Cricut also requests a one-month extension of the Target Date.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE
`
`The Notice of Institution of the Investigation (NOI) issued on December 6, 2024. In that
`
`NOI, Cricut asserts five patents directed to heat press machines and one patent directed to
`
`electronic cutting machines. All six patents are asserted against HTVRont, and the lone cutting
`
`machine patent, the D090 Patent, is asserted against HTVRont’s LOKLiK Cutting Machine (the
`
`“LOKLiK Cutting Machine”).
`
`On December 12, 2024, Cricut and HTVRont each served a first set of interrogatories.
`
`Cricut’s Interrogatory No. 1 asked HTVRont for an identification of each Accused Product, and
`
`Interrogatory No. 10 asked for HTVRont’s non-infringement contentions. Exs. L-N. HTVRont’s
`
`Interrogatory No. 1 asked Cricut for an identification of each Accused Product, and Interrogatory
`
`No. 2 asked for Cricut’s infringement contentions. Ex. O.
`
`On December 23, Cricut and HTVRont responded to each other’s interrogatory requests.
`
`In response to Cricut’s Interrogatory No. 1, HTVRont identified the LOKLiK Cutting Machine as
`
`its only cutting machine, and HTVRont did not respond to Interrogatory No. 10 with any non-
`
`infringement contentions. Ex. P.
`
`On December 23, 2024, Cricut responded to HTVRont’s Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 by
`
`identifying the products accused in the complaint and the accompanying infringement contentions.
`
`Ex. Q. Cricut also added a footnote to its response to Interrogatory No. 1 identifying the LOKLiK
`
`iCraft with a link to a “pre-sale” page on HTVRont’s website for identification purposes. Id. at n.
`
`3
`
`

`

`5. Cricut did not provide infringement contentions for the LOKLiK iCraft, as it had not yet been
`
`imported into the United States.
`
`As of January 9, 2025, the LOKLiK iCraft page on HTVRont’s website continued to list
`
`the product as only available for “pre-sale,” which indicated to the public (including Cricut) that
`
`the LOKLiK iCraft was still not being imported and not available for inspection. Ex. R.2
`
`On January 22, 2025, after the Preliminary Conference, the parties and Staff conducted the
`
`third discovery committee meeting. During that meeting, counsel for HTVRont indicated that
`
`HTVRont had introduced an alleged “redesign” of the presently accused LOKLiK Cutting
`
`Machine and that HTVRont would be supplementing its discovery responses to add that new
`
`product into this Investigation. Upon learning that the LOKLiK iCraft was now being imported
`
`and sold in the United States, and that HTVRont sought to add it to the Investigation, Cricut’s
`
`counsel purchased a LOKLiK iCraft from Amazon.com that same day, on January 22, 2025. It
`
`was delivered on January 27, 2025. Ex. S.
`
`On January 27, HTVRont supplemented its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 10.
`
`HTVRont’s supplement identified its “LOKLiK iCraft cutting machine” as an accused product
`
`and provided non-infringement contentions. Ex. T. HTVRont also stated that it “no longer sells
`
`the [first] generation cutting plotter / LOKLik Crafter cutting machine that Cricut identified in its
`
`complaint and initial interrogatory responses.” Id. at 34. Thus, HTVRont seeks to introduce the
`
`LOKLiK iCraft into this Investigation.
`
`Cricut contends that, while HTVRont’s original LOKLiK Cutting Machine copied the
`
`ornamental design for Cricut’s older “Explore” cutting machines and infringed Cricut’s D090
`
`
`2 Ex. R is a printout from the “Way Back Machine” of the Internet Archive. The date the page was archived can be
`ascertained by the URL. See https://archive.org/legal/affidavit.php (explaining how to correlate the URL with the
`archive date).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent, HTVRont’s new LOKLiK iCraft copies the ornamental design for Cricut’s newer “Maker”
`
`cutting machines and infringes Cricut’s D214 Patent covering the Maker line.
`
`Cricut “Explore” cutting machine (with
`disclaimed portions in dotted lines)
`
`HTVRont LOKLiK cutting machine
`
`Cricut “Maker” cutting machine
`
`HTVRont iCraft cutting machine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On January 29, 2025, counsel for Cricut informed HTVRont and the Staff of its intention
`
`to add the D214 Patent to the case and requested a meet and confer.
`
`On January 31, 2025, the parties met and conferred regarding the proposed amendment,
`
`and counsel for HTVRont stated that it would consider Cricut’s request over the weekend and
`
`provide its updated position by Monday, February 3, 2025. On February 3, HTVRont stated that
`
`it would not oppose this motion provided that Cricut requested a one-month extension to the Target
`
`Date. Ex. K. HTVRont indicated that, among other reasons, such an extension to the Target Date
`
`was necessitated by the fact that the D214 patent has a later priority date than the D090 patent, by
`
`5
`
`

`

`over four years. As such, according to HTVRont, the additional time is required to search for prior
`
`art for the D214 that would not be available against the D090 patent. HTVRont also represents
`
`that additional time is needed to take foreign third-party discovery of D241 inventor Lukas Fuchs,
`
`who, based on HTVRont’s initial investigation, lives in the Netherlands and is not employed by
`
`Cricut. HTVRont further has agreed to enter an appropriate agreement, such as a consent order, to
`
`remove Cricut’s allegations concerning HTVRont’s infringement of the D090 Patent from this
`
`Investigation.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Commission Rule 210.14(b) allows post-institution amendments to the complaint “for [A]
`
`good cause shown and [B] upon such conditions as are necessary to avoid prejudicing the public
`
`interest and the rights of the parties to the investigation.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.14(b). “Amendments
`
`are to be freely granted.” Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance Sys. Cameras & Components
`
`Thereof (“Assistance Sys.”), Inv. No. 337-TA-907, Order No. 6, 2014 WL 2536255, at *4 (May
`
`27, 2014) (unreviewed in relevant part) (citing Certain Athletic Shoes With Viewing Windows, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-309, Order No. 3 at 5 (Feb. 23, 1990)). “Timely motions to amend the complaint are
`
`often granted, provided that it has been established that the requirements of the Commission Rules
`
`are satisfied.” Certain Standard Cell Libraries, Products Containing or Made Using the Same,
`
`Integrated Circuits Made Using the Same, and Products Containing Such Integrated Circuits
`
`(“Standard Cell Libraries”), Inv. No. 337-TA-906, Order No. 10, 2014 WL 115153, at *2 (Mar.
`
`13, 2014).
`
`A complainant who seeks to amend the complaint and notice of investigation bears the
`
`burden of establishing the existence of good cause to make the requested amendment. Certain
`
`EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor Devices and
`
`Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-395, Order No. 18, at 2 (Aug. 27, 1997) (Doc. ID.
`
`6
`
`

`

`168908). Generally, good cause exists when new information is obtained during discovery that
`
`was not known to a complainant prior to institution. See Certain Cartridges for Electronic Nicotine
`
`Delivery Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1141, Order No. 29 at 2 (May 15,
`
`2019).
`
`In addition, good cause has been found for amending a complaint after institution where
`
`the proposed amendment would “conserve judicial and private resources by consolidating issues
`
`that involve the same Complainant [], the same Respondents, overlapping, technology, and
`
`overlapping witnesses.” Certain Digital Televisions & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`742, Order No. 5, at 3 (Dec. 23, 2010) (Doc. ID. 441593); see also Certain Flash Memory Devices
`
`and Components Thereof and Products Containing Such Devices and Components, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-552, Order No. 4, at 3 (Dec. 2, 2005) (Doc. ID. 243440) (granting leave to amend where newly
`
`asserted claims were “closely related” to claims already at issue). Good cause to add allegations
`
`of infringement of patents newly asserted against respondents has been found where complainant
`
`first learns of respondent’s infringing product or action after the institution of an investigation. See
`
`Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the
`
`Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1149, Order No. 15 at 4-5 (June 13, 2019) (Doc. ID. 678478).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Good Cause Exists to Grant the Motion.
`
`Good cause exists for amending the Complaint to add the D214 Patent to the Investigation
`
`because, as far as Cricut could determine from public sources, HTVRont did not import, or sell
`
`after importation, the LOKLiK iCraft cutting machine until mid-January, 2025 and Cricut was
`
`diligent in obtaining the product, analyzing it, requesting a meet and confer on this motion to
`
`amend, and preparing the instant motion and amended complaint thereafter.
`
`7
`
`

`

`HTVRont’s new design efforts were not known to Cricut at the time it filed the Complaint.
`
`HTVRont did not provide any indication of the status (or even existence) of the LOKLiK iCraft in
`
`its December 23 interrogatory responses. See Ex. P. It is not clear when precisely HTVRont’s
`
`new product was first imported, but at least as of January 9, 2025, HTVRont informed the public
`
`(including Cricut) that the LOKLiK iCraft was still in a “pre-sale” phase. See Ex. R (showing that
`
`the LOKLiK iCraft was available for pre-sale on January 9, 2025). Of course, Cricut was unable
`
`to
`
`assert
`
`infringement
`
`of
`
`any
`
`patent
`
`against
`
`the LOKLiK
`
`iCraft
`
`in
`
`this
`
`Investigation prior to the product becoming available for inspection after importation into the
`
`United States.3
`
`It was not until January 22 that HTVRont first informed Cricut that it intended to introduce
`
`the LOKLiK iCraft into this Investigation as a “redesign” of the presently accused LOKLiK
`
`Cutting Machine. Cricut’s counsel promptly purchased the LOKLiK iCraft that same day, on
`
`January 22. Ex. S. One week passed between the time Cricut’s counsel ordered the device and
`
`when Cricut informed HTVRont of its intention to amend the complaint, including the time it took
`
`for the device to arrive. In this short time period, Cricut analyzed the device, compiled the
`
`additional domestic industry data and information (on the Maker product line), and drafted the
`
`complaint amendments. This motion was filed immediately following the mandatory meet and
`
`confer and follow-up discussions, as required by the Ground Rules for this Investigation. Thus,
`
`once counsel for Cricut learned that the LOKLiK iCraft had become available for inspection in the
`
`
`3 It is unclear at this time whether HTVRont sold for importation into the United States any
`LOKLiK iCraft products prior to January 9, 2025, under what it termed the “pre-sale” (as opposed
`to selling outside the United States). Nor did HTVRont indicate when it would start shipping the
`devices. Nevertheless, even if the Commission technically might have had the statutory authority
`to investigate the LOKLik iCraft on January 9 as a sale for importation, Cricut was not yet in a
`position to accuse it of infringement of the D214 patent until that product could be inspected and
`analyzed.
`
`8
`
`

`

`United States, counsel purchased it, diligently investigated the product, determined that it infringed
`
`the D214 patent and that a domestic industry was met, and promptly compiled the information
`
`necessary for an amended complaint.
`
`B.
`
`Granting This Motion Will Not Prejudice the Parties or the Public Interest.
`
`Respondents and the public will not be prejudiced by Cricut’s proposed amendment to the
`
`Complaint.
`
`The Investigation is in the early phases: There is little, if any, discovery that will need to
`
`be redone as a result of adding the D214 Patent. In fact, discovery has just recently commenced.
`
`Claim construction has not begun and no depositions have been taken (or even scheduled).
`
`HTVRont has not even provided any invalidity contentions yet. Given the nascent status of the
`
`Investigation, HTVRont would not be prejudiced by the amendment to the complaint. The
`
`addition of one design patent with one claim will not prejudice HTVRont or the public, provided
`
`HTVRont is given time to search for prior art to the D214 Patent.
`
`Amending the Complaint would not materially enlarge the scope of the Investigation:
`
`
`
`The proposed Second Amended Complaint involves the same Complainant, the same
`
`HTVRont Respondents, similar accused products, and similar technology. In connection with the
`
`meet and confer process, HTVRont initially opposed the present motion because it views the D214
`
`Patent as “so similar to [Cricut’s] already-asserted D090 patent.” Ex. U. HTVRont’s assertion that
`
`the D214 Patents is “so similar” to the D090 cutting machine patent already asserted in this
`
`Investigation supports adding the D214 patent to this investigation. Moreover, two of the three
`
`inventors of the D214 Patent, Grayson Stopp and Thomas Crisp, are named inventors of other
`
`asserted patents in this investigation. See EDIS Doc. ID. 834124 Exs. 2-6.
`
`In addition, Cricut will not assert the D090 Patent against the LOKLiK iCraft in this
`
`Investigation, and Cricut so informed HTVRont at the January 31 meet and confer prior to filing
`
`9
`
`

`

`of this motion. HTVRont stated in its interrogatory responses that “HTVRont no longer sells the
`
`‘A’ generation cutting plotter / LOKLiK Crafter cutting machine that Cricut identified in its
`
`complaint.” Accordingly, HTVRont agreed to enter an agreement, such as a consent order, on the
`
`D090 Patent to remove it from the Investigation as to HTVRont. Given that the only other
`
`Respondents against whom the D090 Patent is asserted in this Investigation, Vevor, have failed to
`
`appear, an HTVRont consent order on the original LOKLiK Cutting Machine would streamline
`
`the case and remove the need for any further discovery regarding that D090 Patent.4 The D090
`
`Patent names 7 inventors, none of whom are named on other patents.
`
`Amending the complaint will promote efficiency: The requested amendment would also
`
`serve to promote the efficient administration of justice in this matter by resolving the parties’
`
`dispute over the LOKLiK iCraft in the current Investigation. HTVRont is already seeking to
`
`introduce the LOKLiK iCraft into this Investigation, and allowing the amendment would alleviate
`
`the burden on the private parties, Staff, and Chief Administrative Law Judge that would be incurred
`
`in a separate investigation involving the D214 Patent.
`
`Any potential prejudice can be cured: Any perceived prejudice could be cured by a one-
`
`month extension to the Target Date (and corresponding extensions to the Procedural Schedule),
`
`reflective of the early state of the Investigation. HTVRont would get the benefit of an extension
`
`not only on the D214 Patent, but also on the previously asserted patents.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Good cause exists to allow amendment of the Complaint to include claims of infringement
`
`of U.S. Design Patent No. D877,214. In addition, the amendment will not prejudice the parties or
`
`the public interest. To the contrary, allowing this amendment would promote the efficient
`
`
`4 Cricut continues to assert the D090 Patent against the Vevor cutting machines, and Cricut
`intends to file a motion to find Vevor in default at an appropriate time.
`
`10
`
`

`

`administration of justice. Cricut thus respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative Law
`
`Judge issue an Initial Determination permitting the requested amendment to the complaint and
`
`Notice of Investigation and extending the Target Date by one month.
`
`
`Dated: February 4, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Jay H. Reiziss
`
`Jay H. Reiziss
`Alex P. Ott
`Timothy M. Dunker
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capital Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 756-8000
`cricutitc@mwe.com
`
`David J. Tobin
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street Suite 1900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 210-2793
`cricutitc@mwe.com
`
`James M. Oehler
`Tessa M. Kroll
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 372-2000
`cricutitc@mwe.com
`
`Counsel for Complainant
`Cricut, Inc.
`
`11
`
`

`

`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Cheney1426@usitc.gov
`Yoncha Kundupoglu, Esq.
`Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`yoncha.kundupoglu@usitc.gov
`Respondents Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd.,
`Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., and
`Guangdong Rongtu Technology Co., Ltd.
`Helena D. Kiepura
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`500 Eighth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`DLA-Sijiu-1426@us.dlapiper.com
`
`☒Via EDIS
`☐Via Hand Delivery
`☐Via Overnight Courier
`☐Via Email
`☐Via EDIS
`☐Via Hand Delivery
`☐Via Overnight Courier
`☒Via Box
`☒Via Email
`☐Via EDIS
`☐Via Hand Delivery
`☐Via Overnight Courier
`☒Via Box
`☒Via Email
`
`☐Via EDIS
`☐Via Hand Delivery
`☐Via Overnight Courier
`☒Via Email
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on February 4, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
`served upon the following, in the manner indicated below:
`
`
`/s/ Ethan Song
`Ethan Song
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`