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 RESPONSIVE MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 6, 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)
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`A.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................... 1 
`
`B.  U.S. PATENT NO. 11,208,758 & U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646 COMMON TERMS . 1 
`
`1.  “substrate” .................................................................................................... 2 
`
`2.  “located within” ............................................................................................ 5 
`
`C.  U.S. PATENT NO. 11,208,758 ................................................................ 8 
`
`1.  “shell” ........................................................................................................... 8 
`
`D.  U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646 ............................................................... 13 
`
`1.  “planar” ...................................................................................................... 13 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`i
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Akzo Novel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................... 8
`
`Bell Atl. Networks. Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp. Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 7, 15
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................ 2
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................... 9
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................... 9
`
`Fargo Elecs. v. Iris, Ltd., 287 F. App’x 96 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................... 9
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2016 WL 1690306 (D.N.J. 2016) ............................... 9
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. QT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................... 1
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ................................................. 8
`
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................ 8, 9, 12, 13
`
`Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...... 14
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 251 .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 255 .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`MPEP § 1481 ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(e) ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`Commission Decisions 
`
`Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1344, Comm’n Op.
`(Aug. 24, 2023) (EDIS Doc. ID 803150 (Public Vers.)) .................................................. 8
`
`Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Prods. Containing Same (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1220,
`Order No. 39 (June 15, 2021) (EDIS Doc. ID 744835 (Public Vers.)) .............................. 3
`
`Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same, Inv. No.
`337-TA-1265, Initial Determination (Sept. 9, 2022) (EDIS Doc. ID 781840 (Public Vers.))
`................................................................................................................................... 14
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`i
`
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`‘646 Patent
`
`‘758 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758
`
`CMB
`
`RMB
`
`SMB
`
`Complainant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Feb. 20, 2025)
`(EDIS Doc. ID 844001)
`
`Respondents' Opening Claim Construction Brief (Feb. 20, 2025)
`(EDIS Doc. ID 843998)
`
`Commission Investigative Staff’s Markman Brief at 9-10 (Feb. 20,
`2025) (EDIS Doc. ID 843969) (“SMB”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`i
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`SXM-0001
`
`SXM-0002
`
`SXM-0003
`
`SXM-0004
`
`SXM-0005
`
`SXM-0006
`
`SXM-0007
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Complainant Cricut’s First Supplemental Responses and Objections
`to Respondent HTVRont’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16)
`(Jan. 21, 2025)
`
`Respondents Hunan Sijiu 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,
`2025)
`
`FreeDictionary-Within
`
`FreeDictionary Sources
`
`FreeDictionary-Planar
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,252,171 (“Anderson”) [corrected Feb. 21, 2025]
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/540,021
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`i
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`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 responsive claim construction brief.
`
`Order No. 2 at 14 (Dec. 12, 2024) (EDIS Doc. ID 839150).
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Staff refers to its opening brief for a discussion of the background in this
`
`Investigation. SMB at 1-3.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Staff refers to its opening brief for a discussion of the legal standards for claim
`
`construction and indefiniteness. SMB at 3-6
`
` THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`A.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The private parties initially proposed different levels of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`SMB at 9-10. However, it appears that Complainant has agreed to the definition of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art proposed by Respondents. CMB at 3. Therefore, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is a person 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. CMB at 3; SXM-0002 (Respondents’ Interrogatory
`
`Responses) at 20-21.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,208,758 & U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646 COMMON
`TERMS
`
`There are two disputed terms that appear in both the ‘758 and ‘646 Patents. These
`
`two claim terms should be construed consistently across both patents. Iridescent Networks, Inc.
`
`v. QT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d, 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019). References to both the ‘758
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`1
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`and ‘646 Patent prosecution histories are relevant for the same claim terms. Id. As a result,
`
`“substrate” and “located within” are discussed immediately below in connection with the
`
`‘758 Patent. However, the construction should remain the same for the ‘646 Patent.
`
`“substrate”
`
`1.
`
`Term
`
`Complaint’s
`Construction
`“a supportive
`component”
`
`Respondents’
`Construction
`“a structural support
`component distinct
`from the handle”
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`“a structural support
`component distinct
`from the handle”
`
`“substrate”
`[’758 Patent, claims 1, 4, 12-
`13, 17-18, 23]
`[’646 Patent, claim 14]
`
`
`
`The intrinsic evidence supports construing “substrate” to mean “a structural support
`
`component distinct from the handle.” This term is found in all the independent claims of the
`
`‘758 Patent and claim 14 of the ‘646 Patent.
`
`Complainant contends that the claim language supports construing that the
`
`“substrate” is a component of the “handle,” not a separate element. CMB at 4. However,
`
`the claim language shows otherwise. As discussed in the Staff’s opening brief, these two
`
`elements are introduced separately—“a handle” and “a substrate.” If the “substrate” was an
`
`inherent part of the “handle,” there would be no need to do that. See MPEP § 2173.05(e)
`
`(inherent components of already recited elements have antecedent basis in the recitation of
`
`the elements themselves, e.g., “the radius” of “a circle” finds its antecedent in the first
`
`recitation of “a circle”); Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Complainant further argues that “the claim specifies the substrate is a component of
`
`the handle, and not a separate element, due to the use of the word ‘including’ in the claim
`
`followed by a set of components,” and cites a previous investigation which found that a
`
`“lead frame” that includes “a transparent plate” means that the “transparent plate” is part of
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`2
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`the “lead frame.” Id. (citing Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Prods. Containing Same
`
`(II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, Order No. 39 at 12 (June 15, 2021) (EDIS Doc. ID 744835
`
`(Public Vers.)) (“Filament LEDs”). The Staff agrees that the “substrate” (20), when recited in
`
`the patent claims, is a part of the “handle” the same way that the “electrical circuit” (15) is a
`
`part of the handle, as shown below. JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 2:6-8, 2:25-27, 2:61-64, 4:32-
`
`34.
`
`Electrical
`Circuit
`
`Substrate
`
`JXM-001 and JXM-002
`(‘758 and ‘646 Patents)
` Fig. 5 (Annotated)
`
`However, the Staff does not agree that the “substrate” and “handle” can be construed to
`
`
`
`collapse into a single component. Such a construction would broaden the claim so that the
`
`“substrate” disappears into the “handle.” That is not the type of construction that prevailed
`
`in Filament LEDs as Complainant appears to argue. Rather, Filament LEDs found that the
`
`“transparent plate” is a separate element but also a component in the “lead frame.” Filament
`
`LEDs at 13. The same logic should apply here.
`
`With respect to construing “substrate” as a structural support, Complainant contends
`
`that this modifier is unnecessary because the specification does not use the words “structure”
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`3
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`or “structural.” CMB at 5. However, the ‘758 Patent’s written description and prosecution
`
`history support this construction as explained in the Staff’s previous brief. SMB at 13-17.
`
`The ‘758 Patent’s written description relies on the “substrate” to provide structural support to
`
`the handle (16), to prevent it from collapsing or breaking due to the downward force of the
`
`user’s hand. SMB at 14 (showing JXM-0001 and JXM-002 at Fig. 2).
`
`In addition, the ‘758 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`62/540,021 (“the ‘021 Provisional Patent Application”). JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at face
`
`page. The ‘758 Patent’s written description incorporates by reference the ‘021 Provisional
`
`Patent Application in its entirety. JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 1:12-15. The provisional patent
`
`application’s disclosure concerning the “substrate” supports, and is consistent with, the
`
`construction for “substrate” proposed by Respondents and the Staff. It explains, as shown
`
`below, that the durability of the claimed Heat Press is due to a sheet metal substrate (or
`
`deflector plate) in the handle that can withstand even extreme force.
`
`
`
`
`SXM-0007 (‘021 Prov. Pat. App.) at CRI00006356-57 (Highlighting added)
`
`Just like a structural beam in a building directs loading forces from a ceiling to the floor, in
`
`
`
`the claimed heat press, a user’s downward force is directed through the handle onto the
`
`“substrate” and into the heat plate. Both serve the purpose of providing structural, and not
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`4
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`just any, support. Therefore, the construction proposed by Respondents and the Staff is
`
`supported by the intrinsic evidence and does not include any unnecessary modifiers as
`
`Complainant claims.
`
`“located within”
`
`2.
`
`Term
`
`Complaint’s
`Construction
`“located inside”
`
`Staff’s
`Respondents’
`Construction
`Construction
`“fully enclosed by” Plain meaning, such
`as “located inside”
`
`“located within”
`[’758 Patent, claim 18]
`[’646 Patent, claims 5, 14]
`
`
`As discussed in the Staff’s previous brief, both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`support construing “located within” consistent with its plaining meaning as “located inside.”
`
`SMB at 17-22. Respondents contend that this term should be construed to mean “fully
`
`enclosed by.” RMB at 8-13. However, that is incorrect. Meanwhile, it is unclear why
`
`Complainant opposes the Staff’s proposed construction, which appears to be essentially the
`
`same as that proposed by Complainant.
`
`With respect to Respondents’ argument regarding prosecution history disclaimer, the
`
`Staff does not believe that the patent applicant’s arguments regarding Anderson (SXM-0006)
`
`and the “substrate” gave up claim scope as Respondents claim. RMB at 8. To overcome the
`
`Patent Examiner’s rejection based on Anderson (SXM-0006), the applicant repeatedly
`
`argued that “Anderson fails to disclose his cantilever arm 26 being located within the handle 22.”
`
`JXM-004 (‘758 Patent Pros. Hist.) at CRI00004309 (triple emphasis in the original); see also
`
`id. (‘758 Patent Pros. History) at CRI00004308 (“Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`Anderson fails to disclose or suggest a substrate located within a handle as recited by amended
`
`independent claim 36.” (emphasis in the original)), and id. at (758 Patent Pros. History) at
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`5
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`CRI00004309 (“Anderson fails to anticipate claim 36 because Anderson fails to disclose a
`
`substrate located within a handle.”). At the same time, the patent applicant amended the
`
`pending claims as follows—
`
`. . . .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JXM-004 (‘758 Patent Pros. Hist.) at CRI00004302 & CRI00004304
`(highlighting added)
`
`
`Pending claims 21 and 36 issued as claims 1 and 18 of the ‘758 Patent. JXM-004 (‘758
`
`Patent Pros. Hist.) at CRI00004516. Issued claim 1 of the ‘758 Patent currently recites that
`
`“the handle including a substrate at least partially enclosed by a shell.” JXM-001 (‘758 Patent)
`
`at 6:30-31 (emphasis added). Therefore, as shown by issued claim 1, Complainant did not
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`6
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`give up claims directed to a “substrate” that is “at least partially enclosed by a shell.”
`
`Instead, it appears that Complainant argued that what the Patent Examiner equated to a
`
`“substrate” was not inside the Anderson (SXM-0006) “handle” and could not anticipate
`
`pending claim 36. While pending claim 36 was amended, pending claim 21 was not.
`
`Indeed, it appears from the issued claims that “a substrate located within the handle”
`
`recited in issued claim 18 has a broader construction than “substrate at least partially enclosed
`
`by a shell” recited in issued claim 1. For instance, the scope of claim 18 which recites “a
`
`substrate located within the handle” could encompass (i) a “substrate” fully enclosed by the
`
`shell and (ii) a “substrate” partially enclosed by the shell, both of which are a “substrate”
`
`“located within” (or, in line with the plain meaning, “located inside”) the shell. Thus, there
`
`does not appear to be any reason to use prosecution history disclaimer to construe this
`
`disputed claim term.
`
`It is not clear why Complainant opposes the Staff’s proposed construction. CMB at 6.
`
`The Staff has proposed “plain meaning, such as ‘located inside.’” SMB at 17. The only
`
`difference between the Staff’s and Complainant’s proposed construction is that the Staff has
`
`indicated that this is the plain meaning of the term, as evidenced by a dictionary definition
`
`that is consistent with, and does not vary, contradict, expand, or limit the disputed claim
`
`term. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Networks Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp. Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (extrinsic evidence cannot be used to vary or contradict claim language);
`
`SXM-0003 (FreeDictionary.com-Within).
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`7
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,208,758
`1.
`
`“shell”
`
`Term
`
`“the shell”
`[’758 Patent, claims 19-20]
`
`Complaint’s Construction Respondents’
`Construction
`Indefinite
`
`The term is not indefinite.
`“The shell” is “a portion of
`the cover that at least
`partially encloses the
`substrate”
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`Indefinite, no
`antecedent basis.
`
`
`The disputed claim term “the shell” in claims 19-20 of the ‘758 Patent lacks
`
`antecedent basis and therefore, claims 19-20 of the ‘758 Patent are indefinite.
`
`Complainant contends that the claim term “the shell” lacks antecedent bases in claims
`
`19-20 of the ‘758 Patent due to a typographical error, and that the claims should recite “a
`
`shell.” CMB at 10, 13. However, when Complainant’s proposed correction is applied,
`
`claims 19-20 still fail to inform those skilled in the art, with reasonable certainty, about the
`
`scope of the invention. Akzo Novel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)).
`
`Legal Standard. An obvious minor typographical or clerical error in a patent may be
`
`corrected. Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 35 F.4th 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`Correction is appropriate only if
`
`(i)
`
`the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the
`claim language and the specification and
`
`(ii)
`
`the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.
`
`Id.; Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1344, Comm’n
`
`Op. at 12 (Aug. 24, 2023) (EDIS Doc. ID 803150 (Public Vers.)) (“Interferometers”).1
`
`
`1 This Commission Opinion included a dissenting opinion by then Chairman Johanson in
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`8
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`The error must be evident from the face of the patent and the determination must be
`
`made from the point of view of one skilled in the art. Pavo Sols., 35 F.4th at 1373. In
`
`determining whether a particular correction is appropriate, the impact of the correction on
`
`the scope of a claim must be considered and whether the inventor is entitled to the resulting
`
`claim scope based on the written description of the patent. Id.
`
`‘758 and ‘646 Patents’ Written Description. The ‘758 Patent describes a heat press to
`
`adhere iron-on materials onto fabric. JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 1:23-24. Shown below are
`
`figures from the patent. Figure 1 is a perspective view of an exemplary heat press. Id. at 3:9.
`
`Figure 5 is a perspective view of the exemplary heat press without a cover. Id. at 3:14-15.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`footnote 1. Interferometers at 2. He agreed that a district court may correct an obvious error
`in a patent claim, but claims cannot be redrafted to make them operable or to sustain their
`validity. Id. (quoting CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011) and Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`Judicial correction is a narrow remedy to be used sparingly, and the error must be evident on
`the face of the patent. Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2016 WL 1690306, at * 2 (D.N.J.
`2016); Fargo Elecs. v. Iris, Ltd., 287 F. App’x 96, 102 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`9
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`JXM-00X (‘758 Patent), Figures 1 and 5 (highlighting added)
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a heat press with a cover (12), control compartment (14), and
`
`handle (16). Id. at 3:32-37. In some examples, the cover (12) covers a portion of the body
`
`(11) and handle (16). Id. at 3:38-39. Figure 5 illustrates a heat press without the cover (12)
`
`and with an electrical circuit (15) located within the handle (16). Id. at 4:32-34. The written
`
`description provides a single brief description of the shell—
`
`JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 2:4-8 (highlighting added)
`
`
`
`Therefore, in some examples, the cover (12) is made from thermoplastic in which the
`
`handle (16) is at least partially enclosed by a plastic shell. Id. (emphasis added). In these
`
`embodiments, the thermoplastic cover (12) appears to be different from the plastic shell.
`
`Further, the plastic shell forms a cavity for an electrical circuit that is at least indirectly
`
`electrically coupled to the control compartment (14) and heat plate. Id. There is no other
`
`mention of “a shell” in the ‘758 Patent’s written description.
`
`Complainant’s requested correction is included below with “the” replaced by [a] in
`
`claims 19 and 20 of the ‘758 Patent, with that and other relevant claim terms in bold italics.
`
`‘758 Patent, Claims 18-19
`
`18. A heat press comprising:
`a body including a first end and a
`second end;
`a heat plate including a metallic
`member at least partially embedded in a
`plate and located proximate the first
`
`19. The heat press of claim 18, wherein [a]
`shell is formed from plastic.
`
`
`20. The heat press of claim 18, wherein [a]
`shell forms a cavity for housing an
`electrical circuit at least indirectly
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`10
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`‘758 Patent, Claims 18-19
`
`electrically coupled to the heat plate and
`the control compartment.
`
`end of the body, the heat plate
`configured to engage ironable materials;
`a handle located proximate the second
`end of the body and configured to
`withstand forces from a user;
`a substrate located within the handle;
`a cover covering a portion of the body and
`the handle;
`a control compartment spaced away
`from and at least indirectly electrically
`coupled to the heat plate;
`an insulation portion positioned
`between the control compartment and
`the heat plate; and
`an electrical circuit located in contact with
`the substrate.
`
`Claim 18 recites a heat press that includes (i) a body, (ii) a heat plate, (iii) a handle, (iv) a
`
`substrate, (v) a cover, (vi) a control compartment, (vii) insulation, and (viii) an electrical
`
`circuit. The “cover” of claim 18 serves to cover a portion of the body and the handle.
`
`With respect to claim 19, when corrected as Complainant requests, it merely recites
`
`that “[a] shell is formed from plastic.” However, again, this phrase does not explain where
`
`the “shell” is or its function. A more elaborate correction than Complainant proposes is
`
`required for the claim to be supported by the ‘758 Patent’s written description. For example,
`
`claim 19 could in theory be more properly corrected to read (with the correction in bold
`
`italics)—
`
`“The heat press of claim 18, wherein [the cover comprises a] shell [covering a portion of
`the handle that] is formed from plastic.”
`
`
`For claim 19, this appears to be the only correction that the ‘758 Patent specification
`
`supports. However, this is not the correction of an obvious minor typographical and/or
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`11
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`clerical error but instead, the correction of a drafting error. Pavo Sols., 35 F.4th at 1373; see,
`
`e.g., CMB at 13-15.
`
`With respect to claim 20, the errors in this claim also cannot be resolved with the
`
`correction that Complainant seeks. There are two problems with claim 20. One relates to
`
`“the shell.” The other relates to “an electrical circuit at least indirectly electrically coupled to
`
`the heat plate and the control compartment.” Complainant’s requested correction addresses
`
`neither.
`
`The ‘758 Patent’s written description does not support correcting the first part of
`
`claim 20 as requested by Complainant. It would, however, appear to support amending it in
`
`the same or similar way as claim 19 above. The last element recited in claim 18 is “an
`
`electrical circuit located in contact with the substrate.” This “electrical circuit,” because it is
`
`contact with the “substrate,” should be found in the handle (16). JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at
`
`2:4-8, 4:32-34. Claim 20 recites “the shell” which is a cavity for “housing an electrical circuit
`
`at least indirectly electrically coupled to the heat plate and the control compartment.” This is
`
`taken directly from the second sentence in the description of the “shell” in the ‘758 Patent
`
`above. JXM-001 (‘758 Patent) at 2:4-8. The question then is whether “an electrical circuit”
`
`recited in claim 20 is another circuit or, is it the same “an electrical circuit” recited in claim
`
`18. The ‘758 Patent’s written description appears to describe as one and the same the
`
`electrical circuit (i) in the handle next to the “substrate” recited in claim 18 and (ii) that is “at
`
`least indirectly electrically coupled to the heat plate and the control compartment” as recited
`
`in claim 20. Thus, the ‘758 Patent’s written description would at best appear to support
`
`correcting claim 20 to read (with the correction in bold italics)—
`
`20. The heat press of claim 18, wherein [the cover comprises a] shell [that] forms a
`cavity for housing [the] electrical circuit [which is] at least indirectly electrically
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`12
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`coupled to the heat plate and the control compartment.
`
`
`However, this too is not an obvious minor typographical or clerical error but the correction
`
`of a patent claim drafting error. Pavo Sols., 35 F.4th at 1373; see, e.g., CMB at 13-15.2
`
`Therefore, with respect to claims 19-20, the first prong of the inquiry as to whether the
`
`claim requires a minor correction is required is not met. Based on the consideration of the
`
`claim language and the specification, the correction that Complainant requests is not
`
`supported by the intrinsic evidence (claim language and written description) and is subject to
`
`reasonable debate.
`
`D. U.S. PATENT NO. 11,905,646
`1.
`
`“planar”
`
`Term
`
`“planar”
`[’646 Patent, claims 9, 11, 13,
`16]
`
`Complaint’s
`Construction
`No construction
`necessary; plain
`and ordinary
`meaning”
`
`Respondents’
`Construction
`“flat, i.e., no
`curvature”
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`Plain meaning,
`such as “flat, i.e.,
`no curvature”
`
`
`The disputed claim term “planar” should be construed consistently with its plain
`
`meaning as “flat, i.e., no curvature.” Both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence support this
`
`construction. This term is found in claims 9, 11, 13, and 16 in connection with the display
`
`surface and/or controls.
`
`While the Staff appreciates Complainant’s assertion that this term does not require
`
`construction, it has been disputed by Respondents. Respondents appear to claim that at least
`
`some of the accused products have a curved surface. RMB at 13-14. Here, Complainant
`
`
`2 Complainant could correct these errors through a Certificate of Correction or reissue
`application. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 251, 255; MPEP § 1481 (Certificates of Correction).
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`13
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`alleges infringement, including under the doctrine of equivalents, which may or may not
`
`encompass some curvature. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 93, 98, 105. Therefore, this term
`
`requires construction. Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Initial Determination at 28, n.2 (Sept. 9, 2022)
`
`(EDIS Doc. ID 781840 (Public Vers.)) (“Fitness Devices”) (citing Vanderlande Indus. Nederland
`
`BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (only claim terms in
`
`controversy need to be construed)).
`
`First, construing “planar” to mean flat does not require the display or controls to be
`
`horizontal as Complainant claims. CMB at 16. A two-dimensional plane need not be
`
`horizontal or lie on any particular axes.
`
`Second, with respect to Complainant’s argument that “no curvature” could require “a
`
`level of precision much higher than what would be expected for ‘planar’ by ordinary
`
`artisans” (CMB at 16), Complainant has not offered any expert opinion regarding the claim
`
`term “planar” or its level of precision at this time. Further, it appears that this question, the
`
`degree to which the “display” must be “flat, i.e., no curvature,” is an infringement issue and
`
`Complainant’s argument is therefore premature.
`
`Finally, the issue at present is what “planar” means. The patent applicant did not
`
`define this term in the written description or during prosecution. See generally JXM-0002
`
`(‘646 Patent), JXM-005 (‘646 Patent Pros. Hist.). However, the patent applicant did
`
`overcome a prior art rejection (“Cavada”) during prosecution by emphasizing that “Cavada
`
`fails to disclose a display, much less a display having a planar surface.” SMB at 25; JXM-
`
`005 (‘646 Patent Pros. Hist.) at CRI00003806 (emphasis in the original); see also JXM-005 at
`
`CRI00003809 (Notice of Allowance). While this may have a bearing on the application of
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`14
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`
`
`the doctrine of infringement by equivalents, it does not appear to change or vary the plain
`
`meaning of the term “planar.”
`
`This is a disputed term. In the absence of a meaning provided in the intrinsic
`
`evidence, the Staff proposes a plain meaning construction with support from extrinsic
`
`evidence (SXM-0005) that does not conflict or vary the plain meaning of the term—“flat, i.e.,
`
`no curvature.” See Bell Atl. Networks Servs., 262 F.3d at 1269.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Staff believes that the disputed claim terms of the
`
`asserted patents should be construed as set forth above and in the Staff’s opening brief, and
`
`that the disputed claim term recited in claims 19-20 of the ‘758 Patent lack antecedent basis,
`
`which renders claims 19-20 indefinite and therefore invalid.
`
`Ground Rule 1.6 Word Limit Certification
`
`The undersigned certifies that this opening claim construction brief contains 3,672
`
`words, which is within the 5,000 word limit for opening claim construction briefs pursuant to
`
`Ground Rule 7.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 6, 2025
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Yoncha L. Kundupoglu
`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)
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`15
`
`Staff’s Responsive Markman Brief
`
`

`

`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on March 6, 2025, she caused the foregoing
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S RESPONSIVE MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`to be served upon the Administrative Law Judge, by sending one (1) electronic courtesy PDF copy
`by email to the to the Administrative Law Judge’s chambers (Cheney1426@usitc.gov), and
`served the same upon the private parties in the manner indicated below:
`
`
`For Complainant Cricut, Inc.:
`
`Jay H. Reiziss
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 756-8000
`
`For Respondents Hunan Sijiu Technology,
`Col Ltd.; Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology
`Co., Ltd.; and Guangdong Rongtu
`Technology Co., Ltd:
`
`Helena Kiepura
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`500 Eighth Street, NS
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: 202.799.4000
`
`For Respondent LiPingZhan:
`
`LiPing Zhan
`No. 187, Yanglinguan Street
`Xingou Town, Jianli County
`Jingzhou, China 433300
`
`For Respondent Shanghai Sishun E-
`Commerce Co., Ltd.:
`
`Shanghai Sishun E-commerce Co., Ltd.
`5th Floor, Building 6, Lane 958, Jinsha
`Jiangxi Road, Jiading District, Shanghai,
`China 201824
`
`
`
`By Email:
`
`cricutitc@mwe.com
`
`By Email:
`
`DLA-Sijiu-1426@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`By U.S. Air Mail
`
`
`
`By U.S. Air Mail
`
`
`337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`

`

`337-TA-1426
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`For Respondent Bozhou Wanxingui
`Technology Co. Ltd.:
`
`Bozhou Wanxingui Technology Co. Ltd.
`5th Floor, Building 6, Lane 958, Jinsha
`Jiangxi Road, Jiading District, Shanghai,
`China 201824
`
`
`For Respondent Bozhou Zhongdaxiang
`Technology Co., Ltd.:
`
`Bozhou Zhongdaxiang Technology Co., Ltd.
`No. 41, Zhaoyangzhuang Vil., Dawang
`Xingzheng Vil., Niuji Town, Qiaocheng
`Dist., Bozhou, Anhui