`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1426
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 20, 2025
`
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`David O. Lloyd, Supervisory Attorney
`Yoncha L. Kundupoglu, Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-3323 (office)
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 3 
`
`B. INDEFINITENESS ................................................................................ 6 
`
`A.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................... 9 
`
`B.  U.S. PATENT NO. 11,208,758 & U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646 COMMON TERMS 11 
`
`1. “substrate” .................................................................................................. 11 
`
`2. “located within” .......................................................................................... 17 
`
`C. U.S. PATENT NO. 11,208,758 ............................................................... 22 
`
`1. “shell” ......................................................................................................... 22 
`
`D.  U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646 ............................................................... 24 
`
`1. “planar” ...................................................................................................... 24 
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`i
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................. 5, 6, 22
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................. 4
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................ 12
`
`Bell Atl. Networks Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp. Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . 4, 5,
`21
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir 2001) .............................................. 13
`
`Cambrian Sci. Corp. v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 617 F. App'x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................... 11
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................... 6
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............. 9, 10
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335 (Fed.Cir.1998) ................................... 11
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................... 22
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . 4, 21
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................... 4, 21
`
`Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., LLC, 57 F.4th 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023) 4
`
`HD Silicon Sols. LLC v. Microchip Tech. Inc., No. 2023-1397, 2025 WL 409798 (Fed. Cir. Feb.
`6, 2025) ................................................................................................................... 5, 21
`
`Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 805 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................. 11
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. QT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................... 8
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S.
`370 (1996) ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................. 9
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ........................................... 6, 22
`
`Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., 854 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................. 4, 5, 21
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`i
`
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................... 5
`
`Techtronic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 944 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................... 4
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 571 U.S. 318, 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .......................... 3
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................ 5
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(e) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Commission Decisions 
`
`Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-973, Order
`No. 16: Construing Terms of the Asserted Patents (May 6, 2016) (EDIS Doc. ID 580502
`(Public Vers.) ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`ii
`
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`SXM-0001
`
`_ Complainant Cricut’s First Supplemental Responses and Objections
`_ to Respondent HTVRont’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16)
`| (Jan. 21, 2025)
`
`_USS. Patent No. 5,252,171 (“Anderson”)
`
`_ Respondents HunanSijiu Technology Co. Ltd., Hunan Sijiu
`_ Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Rongtu
`_ Technology Co., Ltd.’s First Supplemental Responses to
`-Complainant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-11) (Jan. 27,
`A)
`
`_FreeDictionary-Within
`
`| FreeDictionary Sources
`
`_ FreeDictionary-Planar
`
`SXM-0002
`
`SXM-0003
`
`SXM-0004
`
`SXM-0005
`
`SXM-0006
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`i
`
`Staff's Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`Pursuant to the procedural schedule in this investigation, [Corrected] Order No. 6
`
`
`
`(Feb. 3, 2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 842504), and Ground Rule (“G.R.”) 7.2, the Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“the Staff”) respectfully submits its claim construction brief. Order No. 2
`
`at 14 (Dec. 12, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 839150).
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Commission instituted this investigation on December 11, 2024, based upon a
`
`Complainant filed and supplemented by Cricut, Inc. (“Complainant” or “Cricut”) on
`
`October 4, 24, 25, and 29, 2024. 89 Fed. Reg. 99905 (Dec. 11, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 839897)
`
`(“Notice of Institution of Investigation” or “NOI”); Complaint (Oct. 4, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID
`
`834124); 1st Supplement (Oct. 24, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 835522, 835524 (Public Vers.)); 2nd
`
`Supplement (Oct. 25, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 835691); 3rd Supplement (Oct. 29, 2024) (EDIS
`
`Doc. ID 835873).
`
`This Investigation was instituted to determine if there is a violation of Section 337
`
`based on the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain crafting
`
`machines and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 11,208,758 (“the ‘758 Patent”); 11,905,646 (“the ‘646 Patent”); D893,563 (“the D563
`
`Patent”); D910,724 (“the D724 Patent”); D926,237 Patent (“the D237 Patent”); and
`
`D1,029,090 (“the D090 Patent”). NOI at 99905.
`
`The NOI names eight respondents: (i) Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd., (ii) Hunan
`
`Sijiu Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., and (iii) Guangdong Rongtu Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`(collectively, “the HTVRont Respondents”); (iv) LiPing Zhan (“the Konduone
`
`Respondent”); (v) SainStore Technology Co., Ltd. (“the OffNova Respondent”);
`
`(vi) Shanghai Sishun E-Commerce Co., Ltd., (vii) Bozhou Wanxingyu Technology Co. Ltd.,
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`1
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`and (viii) Bozhou Zhongdaxiang Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “the Vevor
`
`
`
`Respondents”).
`
`Respondents HTVRont are participating in this Investigation. Respondent SainStore
`
`has executed a consent order and is therefore no longer participating in this Investigation.
`
`Order No. 5 (Jan. 8, 2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 840740), unreviewed, Comm’n Notice (Jan. 31,
`
`2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 842359). Respondent Konduone has been served with the Complaint
`
`but has not appeared. See Order No. 9 at 3 (Feb. 12, 2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 843305). The
`
`OffNova Respondents have not yet been served with the Complaint and NOI, have not yet
`
`appeared, and are not participating in this Investigation.
`
`Complainant has filed two motions to amend the Complaint that remain pending.
`
`The first motion asks to (i) add proposed Respondent HK Sijiu International Share Co. Ltd.1
`
`(“HK Sijiu”) and (ii) terminate a current Respondent, Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology
`
`Co., Ltd.2 Mot. Dkt. 1426-002 at 1 (EDIS Doc. ID 841721); Complainant's Supplement to
`
`its Motion to Amend Pursuant to Order No. 7 (Jan. 29, 2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 842089);
`
`Complainant's Corrected Certificate of Service for Document ID 841237, 842089, and
`
`842618 (Feb. 10, 2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 843068). The second motion asks to (i) amend the
`
`Complaint and NOI to add U.S. Design Patent No. D877,214 (“the D214 Patent”) and (2)
`
`
`1 If Complainant’s motion is granted, HK Sijiu is expected to participate in this Investigation
`as a part of the respondent group referred to as HTVRont. See Commission Investigative
`Staff's Response to Complainant's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Notice of
`Investigation and Order No. 7 at 2 (Feb. 10, 2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 843018)
`2 Current Respondent Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd. was formerly known as Hunan
`Sijiu Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. See HTVRONT’s Response to the Complaint and
`Notice of Investigation at 3, fn.1 (Dec. 30, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 840191).
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`2
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`extend the target date by one month. Motion Dkt. 1246-005 (EDIS Doc. ID 842618, 842647
`
`
`
`(CBI Exhibits)).
`
`While Complainant has asserted a number of design patents, the parties request
`
`construction of four terms from only the utility patents—the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents.
`
`Complainant asserts the following claims of the asserted patents—
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`‘758 Patent
`‘646 Patent
`
`18, 19-23
`1-2, 8-12, 14-16
`
`Domestic
`Industry Claims
`1-233
`1-16
`
`
`In accordance with the procedural schedule, the parties submitted a joint chart of
`
`proposed claim constructions for terms with constructions that are agreed upon and for those
`
`terms that are disputed.
`
`A claim construction hearing is scheduled for March 20, 2025.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim construction is a question of law which may be based on underlying findings of
`
`fact. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d,
`
`517 U.S. 370 (1996); Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811
`
`F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318,
`
`325-326, 135 S. Ct. 831, 837-839 (2015)).
`
`Plain Meaning. Claim terms in a patent are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, which is the meaning the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`
`
`3 The domestic industry products are alleged to practice all claims of the two asserted utility
`patents. SXM-0001 (Cricut’s 1st Supp. Interrogatory Responses) at Exhs. A, C.
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`3
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`815 F.3d 1314, 1320, (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d
`
`1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed.
`
`
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The two exceptions to this general rule are when (1) a patentee sets
`
`out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) the patentee disavows the full scope
`
`of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy,
`
`28 F.4th 254, 259 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co.,
`
`LLC, 57 F.4th 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the inventor’s lexicography governs) (citing
`
`Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1316).
`
`The intent to redefine or disavow the full scope of a claim term may be implied or
`
`express but must be clear. Techtronic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 944 F.3d 901, 907
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). For example, disavowal may be inferred from clear limiting descriptions of
`
`the invention in the specification or prosecution history or by distinguishing the claimed
`
`invention from the prior art. Id.
`
`The plain meaning of a claim term is not the meaning of the term in the abstract, but
`
`its meaning to one of ordinary skill after reading the entire patent. Eon Corp., 815 F.3d 1320.
`
`Thus, a word describing patented technology takes its definition from the context in which it
`
`was used by the inventor. Id.; see also Techtronic Indus., 811 F.3d at 1363 (the meaning of
`
`claim terms is derived from the context in which they are used in the patent).
`
`Intrinsic Evidence. When interpreting disputed claim terms, the court should look first
`
`to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Bell Atl. Networks Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns
`
`Grp. Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`4
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of
`
`
`
`the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language. Id. (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at
`
`1582).
`
`Claim Words and Specification. Construing claim terms begins with the language of
`
`the claim, as it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-1313). The claims must also be read in view of the
`
`specification, of which they are a part. Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315). The
`
`specification is always highly relevant to claim construction analysis. Id. at 1339-1340.
`
`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. at
`
`1340 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence. Extrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper
`
`understanding of disputed claim limitations. Bell Atl. Networks Servs., 262 F.3d at 1269; see
`
`also HD Silicon Sols. LLC v. Microchip Tech. Inc., No. 2023-1397, 2025 WL 409798, at *3 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Feb. 6, 2025). It may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim
`
`language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or prosecution
`
`history. Bell Atl. Networks Servs., 262 F.3d at 1269. Extrinsic evidence can provide
`
`background on the technology at issue, explain how an invention works, ensure that the
`
`court's understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person
`
`of skill in the art, or establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a
`
`particular meaning in the pertinent field. SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187,
`
`1195 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318).
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`5
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`INDEFINITENESS
`
`Whether a patent claim is indefinite, and therefore invalid, is a question of law that
`
`may be subject to a determination of underlying facts. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem.
`
`Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patents are presumed to be valid, and therefore
`
`the challenger bears the burden of establishing invalidity due to indefiniteness by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. Akzo Nobel Coatings, 811 F.3d at 1343; Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint
`
`Commc’n Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (any fact critical to an indefiniteness
`
`holding must be proven by clear and convincing evidence). A patent claim is invalid for
`
`indefiniteness if its language, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history,
`
`fails to inform those skilled in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the
`
`invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); Akzo Nobel
`
`Coatings, 811 F.3d at 1343; 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
` THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`The two asserted utility patents are shown in the bold outlined boxes in the diagram
`
`of the patent family below. The ‘646 Patent is a continuation of the ‘758 Patent. Therefore,
`
`the ‘646 and ‘758 Patents have the same written description, are entitled “Heat Press,” and
`
`both claim priority to a provisional application that was filed on August 1, 2017.
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`6
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Both of the asserted patents are continuations of a common provisional application,
`
`
`
`which led to a common PCT application, and a common U.S. patent application that issued
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 10,876,250 (“the ‘250 Patent”).
`
`All of these patents and their prosecution histories are relevant to construing the
`
`disputed claim terms of the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents. It is well-established that claim terms are
`
`to be construed consistently throughout a patent. Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., 854
`
`F.3d 1344, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Furthermore, a claim term should be construed consistently with its
`
`appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the same patent.”)).
`
`Further, statements made during prosecution of a parent application are relevant to
`
`construing terms in a patent resulting from a continuation application if such statements relate
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`7
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`to the subject matter of the claims being construed. Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. QT&T Mobility,
`
`LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added).
`
`Both the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents relate to a safer and more cost-effective heat press
`
`machinethat can provide uniform, consistent, and optimal heat in a home-usesetting.
`
`Complaint at §§ 60, 66. Certain claimsare directed to the structural components of the heat
`
`press, including the placement of the components and how the components interact with one
`
`another. Jd. (emphasis added). Other claims of the ‘646 Patent are directed to the
`
`composition ofinsulating layers. Jd. at J 66.
`
`The parties agree upon the constructionsof the following claim terms—
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“both portions, lengthwise, closer to the
`respective extremities than to the center”
`
`“the insulation portion includinga first
`layer comprising glass reinforced nylon
`and a second layer comprising glass
`fibers”
`
`“ends”
`[646 Patent, claim
`
`14]
`
`“wherein the insulation portion
`comprises glass reinforced nylon, the
`glass reinforced nylon comprising a
`first layer of insulating material; and
`wherein the insulation portion further
`comprises a secondlayer of insulating
`material, the second layer of insulating
`material comprising glass fibers”
`
`[’646 Patent, claim 1]
`from the handle”
`
`However,the parties dispute the meaningsofthe four following claim terms—
`
`Term
`
`Complaint’s
`Construction
`
`Respondents’
`Construction
`
`Staff's
`Construction
`
`“substrate”
`
`[’758 Patent, claims1, 4, 12-
`13, 17-18, 23]
`
`[’646 Patent, claim 14]
`
`“a supportive
`component”
`
`‘a structural support |‘a structural support
`isti
`isti
`from the handle”
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`8
`
`Staff's Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Term
`
`“located within”
`[’758 Patent, claim 18]
`[’646 Patent, claims 5, 14]
`
`“the shell”
`[’758 Patent, claims 19-20]
`
`“planar”
`[’646 Patent, claims 9, 11, 13,
`16]
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint’s
`Construction
`“located inside”
`
`Staff’s
`Respondents’
`Construction
`Construction
`“located internal to” “located inside”
`
`The term is not
`indefinite.
`“The shell” is “a
`portion of the
`cover that at least
`partially encloses
`the substrate”
`
`No construction
`necessary; plain
`and ordinary
`meaning”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite, no
`antecedent basis.
`
`“flat, i.e., no
`curvature”
`
`“flat, i.e., no
`curvature”
`
`
`Because the specifications for the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents are the same, this brief will
`
`refer to the ‘758 Patent’s specification for all claim construction discussions below.
`
`A.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of
`
`all the pertinent prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986). The actual inventors’ skill is not determinative of the appropriate level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Id. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include: the type of problems encountered in the art; prior art
`
`solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the
`
`technology; and educational level of active workers in the field. See, e.g., Certain Wearable
`
`Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-973, Order No. 16:
`
`Construing Terms of the Asserted Patents at 9 (May 6, 2016) (EDIS Doc. ID 580502 (Public
`
`Vers.)) (citing Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Not all
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`9
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate.
`
`
`
`Custom Accessories, 807 F.2d at 962-963.
`
`Complainant contends that, for all of the asserted patents, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have had an undergraduate degree in industrial design or equivalent education
`
`and would have two years of industry experience in the design and production of consumer
`
`electronic products. SXM-0001 (Cricut Supp. Interrogatory Responses) at 27-28. The
`
`HTVRont Respondents contend that a person of ordinary skill for all of the asserted patents
`
`would have been someone with an undergraduate degree in industrial design, mechanical
`
`engineering, or equivalent education, and two years of experience relating to the design of
`
`consumer electronic products. SXM-0002 (HTVRont 1st Supp. Interrogatory Resp.) at 20-21.
`
`The levels of ordinary skill proposed by the private parties are substantially the same.
`
`They differ only in that Complainant requires one of ordinary skill to have an undergraduate
`
`degree in industrial design or equivalent education, whereas the HTVRont Respondents
`
`proposal allows for a broader educational background that also includes mechanical
`
`engineering. Both require two years of experience in the design of consumer electronic
`
`products.
`
`The HTVRont Respondents’ proposal presents a more reasonable level of ordinary
`
`skill that appropriately encompasses a broader scope of academic experience in the field of
`
`the subject matter of the asserted patents. However, the Staff believes that the difference in
`
`the definition of one of ordinary skill proposed by the private parties are not sufficient to
`
`materially impact the construction of the disputed claim terms.
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`10
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO.11,208,758 & U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646 COMMON
`TERMS
`
`There are three disputed terms that appear in both the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents. These
`
`three claim terms should be construed consistently across both patents. Iridescent Networks,
`
`933 F.3d at 1350. References to both the ‘758 and ‘646 Patent prosecutionhistories are
`
`relevant for the same claim terms. Jd. Asaresult, “substrate” and “located within”are
`
`discussed immediately below in connection with the ‘758 Patent. However, the construction
`
`should remain the samefor the ‘646 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`“substrate”
`
`Complaint’s a Staff's
`
`Construction
`
`Construction
`
`[’646 Patent, claim 14]
`
`“substrate”
`[758 Patent, claims1, 4, 12-
`13, 17-18 23]
`7
`
`“a supportive
`component”
`
`‘a structural support |a structural support
`omponentdistinct
`{componentdistinct
`from the handle”
`from the handle”
`
`Theintrinsic evidence supports construing “substrate” to mean “a structural support
`
`componentdistinct from the handle.” This term is foundin all independentclaimsofthe
`
`‘758 Patent and claim 14 ofthe ‘646 Patent.
`
`First, we look to the claim language,as the actual words of the claim are the
`
`controlling focus. Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 805 F.3d 1101, 1108 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (“Claim construction begins with the languageof the claims themselves.”);
`
`Cambrian Sci. Corp. v. Cox Comme'ns, Inc., 617 F. App'x 989, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(quoting Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed.Cir.1998)).
`
`Theplain language of the claims supports construing “substrate” to be a distinct
`
`elementthatis different from the “handle.” In each of the claims in whichitis recited, the
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`11
`
`Staff's Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`term “substrate” is introduced separately from the “handle.” The language that introduces
`
`
`
`the “handle” and “substrate” terms in the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents’ independent claims is
`
`shown below in bold italics—
`
`‘758 Patent
`(JXM-001)
`
`‘646 Patent
`(JXM-002)
`
`14. A heat press comprising:
`…
`a handle configured to withstand forces
`from a user and a substrate located
`within the handle;
`….
`
`1. A heat press comprising:
`…
`a handle configured to withstand forces
`from a user, the handle including a
`substrate at least partially enclosed by a
`shell;
`….
`
`13. A heat press comprising:
`…
`a handle including a substrate and
`located proximate the second end of the
`body, the substrate in direct contact
`with the insulation portion;
`….
`
`18. A heat press comprising:
`…
`a handle located proximate the second
`end of the body and configured to
`withstand forces from a user;
`a substrate located within the handle;
`….
`
`Generally, use of the indefinite article “a” before “handle” and “substrate” means that
`
`these elements are being introduced as distinct elements and to provide antecedent basis if
`
`the element is further limited in dependent claims. See, e.g., Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the claim term “said” is an “anaphoric
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`12
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`phrase|, referring to the initial antecedent phrase”). The need for antecedentbasis is not
`
`required for an elementthat is inherent in another already introduced element. For example,
`
`if the “substrate” were an inherent characteristic of the “handle,” there would be no need to
`
`introduce it separately with an indefinite article. See, e.g., MPEP § 2173.05(e) (inherent
`
`components of elements recited have antecedentbasis in the recitation of the elements
`
`themselves); Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that
`
`recitation of "an ellipse" provided antecedent basis for "an ellipse having a major diameter"
`
`because "[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse
`
`is a major diameter"). The repeated introduction of“a substrate,” separate from “a handle,”
`
`in the asserted patents’ claims supports construing “substrate” as separate and distinct from
`
`the “handle.”
`
`The written description also supports construing “substrate” to mean “a structural
`
`support componentdistinct from the handle.” The “substrate” is shown in Figures 5 and 6
`
`of the ‘758 Patent that are reproduced below.
`
`oF |ft fFray——fq bo
`“
`)
`
`by)
`
`FIG. 5
`
`FIG, 6
`
` » UPB any
`
`~~
`JXM-001 and JXM-002
`(‘758 and ‘646 Patents)
`Fig. 5
`Item 20-Substrate (highlighting added)
`
`JXM-001 and JXM-002
`(‘758 and ‘646 Patents)
`Fig. 6
`Item 20-Substrate (highlighting added)
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`13
`
`Staff's Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`The ‘758 Patent’s specification explains that, in some examples, the cover of the
`
`disclosed Heat Press is made of thermoplastic, and the handle includes a “metal substrate”
`
`thatis at least partially enclosed by a plastic shell—i.e., part of the thermoplastic cover. JXM-
`
`001 (‘758 Patent) at 2:4-8. In every instance the “substrate” is mentioned in the written
`
`description,it is preceded by the word “metal”. JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 2:4-4-12, 2:24-27,
`
`2:38-41, 2:60-64, 3:16-17, 4:52-62, 5:51-52, 5:57-59. This implies that the “substrate,” to
`
`provide structural support to the handle, is made from a different and more robust material
`
`than the thermoplastic handle (16). See id. at 3:35-37 (handle is 16), 2:4-6. When the user
`
`grips the handle (16) including the metal substrate, the user applies a downward force (4) as
`
`shown in Figure 2 from the ‘758 Patent below. JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 2:4-8, 2:25-27,
`
`2:38-41, 2:60-64, 2:52-53.
`
`
`
`FIG, 2
`
`JXM-001 and JXM-002
`(‘758 and ‘646 Patents)
`Fig. 2
`Items 16 (handle) & 4 (user force) (highlighting added)
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`14
`
`Staff's Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`Thus, the “substrate” can be made of metal and is used to provide structural support
`
`
`
`to the handle to withstand forces (4) from the user. Id. at 4:55-57 (“The metal substrate 20
`
`provides the handle 16 support in order to withstand forces from the user.”), 5:51-52 (“For
`
`example, the user can grab the handle 16 including the metal substrate 20 and apply a
`
`downward force 4.”).
`
`The prosecution history also supports construing the “substrate” to be distinct from
`
`the “handle.” During prosecution, the asserted claims were rejected as anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,252,171 (“Anderson”) as follows—
`
`…
`
`JXM-004 (‘758 Patent Pros. Hist.) at CRI00004192 (highlighting added)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`15
`
`Staff’s Markman Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Andersondiscloses a “Heat Sealing Apparatus” as shown below.
`
`
`
`FIG.1
`
`SXM-0006 (Anderson)(highlighting added)
`
`In the rejection, the Patent Examiner equated Anderson’s cantilever arm 26 with the
`
`“substrate” of the ‘758 Patent. JXM-004 (‘758 Patent Pros. Hist.) at CRI00004192.
`
`To overcometherejection, the applicant repeatedly argued that “Anderson fails to
`
`
`
`
`
`disclose his cantilever arm 26 beinglocatedwithinthehandle22.” TXM-004 (‘758 Patent Pros.
`
`Hist.) at CRI00004309 (triple emphasisin the original); see also id. (‘758 Patent Pros. History)
`
`at CRI00004308 (“Applicant respectfully submits that Andersonfails to disclose or suggest a
`
`substrate located within a handle as recited by amended independentclaim 36.” (emphasis in the
`
`original)),* andid. at (758 Patent Pros. History) at CRI00004309 (“Andersonfails to
`
`anticipate claim 36 because Andersonfails to disclose a substrate located within a handle.”).
`
`4 What wasclaim 36 during prosecution issued as claim 18 in the ‘758 Patent
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`16
`
`Staff's Markman Brief
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Thus, the applicant overcame the Patent Examiner’srejection by distinguishing the
`
`“substrate” as inside, and therefore distinct from, the handle.
`
`In sum,the intrinsic evidence—the ‘758 Patent’s figures and written description, and
`
`its prosecution history—disclose that the “substrate” forms a structural support component
`
`that is distinct from the handle to protect against the force of the user’s hand pushing down
`
`and damaging the handle (16).
`
`Thus, “substrate” should be construed to mean “a structural support component
`
`distinct from the handle.”
`
`“located within”
`
`[’646 Patent, claims 5, 14]
`
`Construction
`
`Complaint’s Po
`“located inside”
`|“fully enclosed by”
`
`nstruction
`
`“located within”
`
`[’758 Patent, claim 18]
`
`Boththeintrinsic and extrinsic evidence supports construing “located within”
`
`consistent with its plaining meaningas “located inside.” The disputed term “located within”
`
`is found in claim 18 of the ‘758 Patent in connection w