`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
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1426
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The ’758 And ’646 Patents .................................................................................... 1
`1.
`“substrate” (’758 patent, claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 17, 18, 23; ’646
`patent, claim 14)......................................................................................... 1
`“located within” (’758 patent, claim 18; ’646 patent, claims 5, 14) .......... 4
`2.
`The ’758 Patent ...................................................................................................... 7
`1.
`“the shell” (’758 patent, claims 19, 20) ..................................................... 7
`The ’646 Patent .................................................................................................... 10
`1.
`“planar” (’646 patent, claims 9, 11, 13, 16) ............................................. 10
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`932 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................6
`
`Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1344, Comm'n Op., 2023 WL 5605694 (Aug. 24, 2023) ..............................9
`
`Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (II),
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, Order No. 39 (June 15, 2021) ..........................................................2, 3
`
`Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems Containing
`the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Init. Det., 2022 WL 7027226 (Sept. 9, 2022) ......................................9
`
`Cloud Farm Associates LP v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
`674 F. App'x 100 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................6
`
`IRIS Corp. Berhad v. U.S.,
`843 F. App’x 316 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................2
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................3
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................8
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................10
`
`Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................6, 11
`
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co,
`35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................9
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`998 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................6
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Pats., LLC,
`110 F.4th 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Ground Rule 7.2 ...........................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Production No.
`Exhibit No. Description
`JXM-1
`U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758 (“the ’758 Patent”) CRI00002650
`JXM-2
`U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646 (“the ’646 Patent”) CRI00002668
`JXM-3
`Joint Claim Construction Chart
`N/A
`JXM-4
`’758 Patent File History
`CRI00004050
`JXM-5
`’646 Patent File History
`CRI00002886
`RXM-1
`HTVRONT’s Response to Cricut’s
`N/A
`Interrogatory No. 9
`Cricut’s Response to HTVRONT’s
`Interrogatory No. 10
`Merriam-Webster, “include”
`Oxford Concise Dictionary of Mathematics,
`“coincident”
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the
`English Language, “coincident,” “planar,” and
`“flat”
`Collins English Dictionary, Twelfth Edition,
`“coincident” and “flat”
`Collins English Dictionary, Thirteenth Edition,
`“planar”
`Oxford Student’s Dictionary, “flat”
` HTVRONT’s Third Supp. Resp. to
`Cricut’s Interrogatory No. 10
`
`RXM-2
`
`RXM-3
`RXM-4
`
`RXM-5
`
`RXM-6
`
`RXM-7
`
`RXM-8
`RXM-9
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation Description
`CMB
`Complainant’s Opening Markman Brief
`SMB
`Staff’s Opening Markman Brief
`RMB
`Respondents’ Opening Markman Brief
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Pursuant to Order No. 2 (Ground Rule 7.2) and Corrected Order No. 6, Respondents
`
`
`
`Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd., Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.1, and
`
`Guangdong Rongtu Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “HTVRONT” or “Respondents”) submit
`
`this responsive claim construction brief related to asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,208,758
`
`(JXM-1, hereinafter “the ’758 patent”) and 11,905,646 (JXM-2, hereinafter “the ’646 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cricut’s claim construction brief confirms that it is seeking to read the claims of its
`
`patents more broadly than the intrinsic record permits. HTVRONT’s constructions, however,
`
`remain true to the plain language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history by
`
`giving meaning to each and every word that Cricut chose to include in its claims. The CALJ
`
`should reject Cricut’s broadening proposals, and it should adopt HTVRONT’s constructions.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`The ’758 And ’646 Patents
`
`1.
`
`“substrate” (’758 patent, claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 17, 18, 23; ’646 patent,
`claim 14)
`
`Cricut Proposed
`Construction
`“a supportive component”
`
`Staff and HTVRONT Proposed Construction
`
`“a structural support component distinct from the handle”
`
` Cricut’s brief confirms that Cricut seeks to read the term “substrate” out of the claims so
`
`that it can argue that both “handle” and “substrate” are the same structural component. Cricut’s
`
`case law and attorney argument does not compel this result, nor does the intrinsic record—
`
`instead, the intrinsic record confirms that “handle” and “substrate” must be distinct components
`
`1 Respondent Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd. was formerly known as Hunan Sijiu Electronic
`Technology Co., Ltd. Pending Commission approval of Order No. 10, Hunan Sijiu Electronic
`Technology Co., Ltd. will be terminated from the Investigation.
`1
`
`

`

`
`and that the substrate provides structural support. The ALJ should therefore reject Cricut’s
`
`
`
`proposal and construe “substrate” as proposed by HTVRONT and the Staff.
`
`Cricut’s opening salvo is that claims’ use of the word “including” mandates Cricut’s
`
`construction. CMB at 4. But Cricut gives only one example of how “substrate” is used in the
`
`asserted claims—i.e., the claims that recite “a handle including a substrate.” Id. As HTVRONT
`
`explained in its opening brief, other claims recite “a substrate located within the handle.” RMB
`
`at 5; JXM-1, ’758 patent at cl. 18; JXM-2, ’646 patent at cl. 14. And every single claim in which
`
`the term “substrate” appears recites that the “substrate”—and not the handle—is “in contact
`
`with,” “in direct contact with,” or “fastened to” various other components. JXM-1, ’758 patent at
`
`cl. 1, 4, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 23; JXM-2, ’646 patent at cl. 14. Cricut chose not to address any of
`
`this language in its opening brief, all of which is fatal to its argument that “the plain language of
`
`the claim” mandates its attempt to conflate “handle” and “substrate.” Instead, as HTVRONT and
`
`the Staff agree, the plain language of the claims require that “handle” and “substrate” be distinct
`
`components.
`
`Cricut’s argument regarding the word “including” fails on the merits as well. Importantly,
`
`Cricut’s argument proves its intent: it concedes that it believes the word “including” means the
`
`substrate is “not a separate element.” CMB at 4. But none of its cited cases support its attempt to
`
`write the word “substrate” out of the asserted claims.
`
`For instance, in IRIS Corp. Berhad v. U.S., the dispute was whether the antenna was a
`
`component of the integrated circuit—i.e. located within the bounds of the integrated circuit—or
`
`whether it was a separate element to which the integrated circuit attaches. 843 F. App’x 316, 318
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021). And Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same
`
`(II) likewise is not on point. Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, Order No. 39 at 11-12 (June 15, 2021). In
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`that case, the parties disputed whether the “transparent plate” was part of the “lead frame,” but
`
`
`
`they did not dispute whether the same structural element could satisfy both “lead frame” and
`
`“transparent plate.” Id. Here, HTVRONT does not dispute that the substrate may be located
`
`partially or completely within the bounds of the handle, depending on the claim—but it does
`
`dispute Cricut’s attempt to make the handle and the substrate one and the same.
`
`Cricut also disputes the word “structural” in HTVRONT and Staff’s construction, arguing
`
`it is “made out of whole cloth.” CMB at 5. That argument is wrong. HTVRONT and Staff’s
`
`construction properly reflects the intrinsic record that describes the substrate as a separate
`
`component that “provides the handle 16 support in order to withstand forces from the user.”
`
`JXM-1, ’758 patent at 4:55-57. The phrase “structural support component” connotes just that—
`
`that the substrate is a distinct structure from the handle that “provides the handle 16 support in
`
`order to withstand forces from the user.” Id. HTVRONT and Staff do not seek “to add some
`
`other unspecified requirement to the claims”—instead, HTVRONT and Staff seek to give full
`
`meaning to the patentee’s choice to claim “handle” and “substrate” as separate claim limitations.
`
`See Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Pats., LLC, 110 F.4th 1331, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (rejecting
`
`claim construction that “would incorporate the steps recited in claim limitation [1.3] (deciding
`
`and selecting) directly into claim limitation [1.1] (receiving), thereby leaving claim limitation
`
`[1.3] no work to do”); see also Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all terms of the claim is preferred
`
`over one that does not do so.”).
`
`Cricut is also wrong to argue that HTVRONT and Staff seek to read an embodiment into
`
`the claims. CMB at 5. Not so. To the contrary, in every embodiment that has a substrate, it is a
`
`separate structural component from the handle, even when the handle “includes” the substrate.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`RMB at 5-6. The specification does not, as Cricut alleges, state otherwise. CMB at 5. Indeed,
`
`
`
`Cricut’s brief leaves out several critical words when it quotes the specification:
`
`In some examples, the heat press 10 includes a metal substrate 20
`located within the handle 16. In order to keep the heat press’s 10
`weight at a minimum, a majority of its components are made of
`plastic or thermoplastic. The metal substrate 20 provides the
`handle 16 support in order to withstand forces from the user.
`
`JXM-1, ’758 patent at 4:51-58 (underlined portion omitted by Cricut); compare CMB at 5 (“‘[i]n
`
`some examples … substrate 20 provides the handle 16 support in order to withstand forces from
`
`the user’”) (emphasis in original). Thus, Cricut is wrong that the patent teaches that the substrate
`
`provides support only “in some examples.” Instead, some embodiments have a substrate and
`
`some do not—but in all that do, the substrate is a structural support element distinct from the
`
`handle. The ALJ should reject Cricut’s proposal and adopt HTVRONT and the Staff’s
`
`construction.
`
`2.
`
`“located within” (’758 patent, claim 18; ’646 patent, claims 5, 14)
`
`Cricut and Staff Proposed Construction
`
`“located inside”
`
`HTVRONT Proposed
`Construction
`“fully enclosed by”
`
`The term “located within” must be construed to give full weight to Cricut’s prosecution
`
`disclaimer, which means it must mean something more than simply “located inside.” Cricut and
`
`Staff’s construction does not do so because “located inside” is a broad proposal that would
`
`permit Cricut to recapture claim scope it gave up during prosecution—i.e. a meaning of “located
`
`inside” that permits the relevant component to be partially exposed rather than fully enclosed. As
`
`HTVRONT explained it its opening brief, while water may be “located inside” a glass, that water
`
`is not “fully enclosed by” the glass, and that is the critical difference between the parties’
`
`proposals. HTVRONT’s proposal is correct, and the CALJ should adopt it.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Contrary to Cricut’s claim, this issue relates to a live dispute, as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cricut’s refusal to acknowledge its disclaimer—and its refusal to confirm that “handle” and
`
`“substrate” are separate elements—demonstrates it will try to argue otherwise. For example,
`
`under its current proposals, Cricut could argue that a solid handle comprises both “handle” and
`
`“substrate located within the handle” because the handle has an inner circumference:
`
` RXM-9, HTVRONT’s Resp. to Cricut’s Interrogatory No. 10 at 7 (paginated 41). That result
`
`would contradict the intrinsic record, and the CALJ should reject it.
`
`Despite Cricut’s protests to the contrary, the prosecution history demonstrates that Cricut
`
`disclaimed any claim scope that would permit “located within” to refer to an exterior component
`
`of the claimed heat press. First and foremost, the ’646 patent cannot escape the disclaimer, and
`
`Cricut cites no law at all (let alone law to the contrary) that says that it can. CMB at 6-7. Instead,
`
`under Federal Circuit precedent, Cricut’s prosecution disclaimer in obtaining the ’758 patent
`
`applies equally to the ’646 patent because it is a later-filed continuation of the ’758 patent. See
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (applying
`
`
`
`prosecution disclaimer from parent patent to child patent).
`
`Cricut’s arguments addressing its disclaimer also fail. It concedes that it amended the
`
`claims to replace “the handle including a substrate at least partially enclosed by a shell” with “a
`
`substrate located within the handle,” but then does not explain why that “plain language” did not
`
`effect a disclaimer. CMB at 8. Cricut amended its claims to overcome prior art, and so it
`
`disclaimed the amended claim scope. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373, 1379-80
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021) (patentee disclaimed claim scope when it amended claims to overcome prior
`
`art); see also RMB at 8. And here, that amendment was to remove language that would permit
`
`the substrate to be “at least partially enclosed by a shell” and replace it with different language.
`
`JXM-4, ’758 Patent File History at CRI00004304. Thus, the new language—“a substrate located
`
`within the handle”—must mean something different. Cloud Farm Associates LP v. Volkswagen
`
`Group of America, Inc., 674 F. App’x 100, 1008-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) (patentee
`
`“disclaimed a claim scope that allows fluid flow when the seal is closed” when it amended claim
`
`from “prevent any substantial flow” to “prevent any flow”); see also Ajinomoto Co. v. Int’l
`
`Trade Comm’n, 932 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Under Cricut and the Staff’s proposal, it
`
`does not; instead, only HTVRONT’s proposal gives full meaning to the amended claim
`
`limitation.
`
`On argument-based disclaimer, Cricut does not tell the whole story because it ignores the
`
`discussion of the cover relative to the handle and the substrate. Specifically, Cricut does not
`
`mention the examiner’s and the applicant’s discussion of the cover relative to the handle and the
`
`substrate. CMB at 8-10; see also JXM-4, ’758 Patent File History at CRI00004192 (Examiner
`
`rejection stating, as to Anderson, “[a] cover 50 is provided for covering the upper body portion,
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`portions of the handle and circuitry.”); id. at CRI00004309 (“Notably, while Anderson’s
`
`
`
`cantilever arm 26 is enclosed by the cover 50, Anderson’s handle 22 is exposed from the cover
`
`50 so that the operator can freely grasp the handle[.]”). Thus, contrary to Cricut’s argument, the
`
`issue was not merely “whether the substrate in Anderson was even in the handle at all.” CMB at
`
`10. Instead, the applicant had to and did address—via its amendments and its remarks—the fact
`
`that the amended claim differed from the prior art because the substrate was not “partially
`
`enclosed.”
`
`The Staff’s dictionary definitions likewise support HTVRONT’s proposal. Although
`
`“within” can mean simply “inside” as Cricut and the Staff propose, it can also mean “enclosed or
`
`encased by” or “in or into the interior of or the parts or space enclosed by.” SXM-0003. Here,
`
`where Cricut differentiated “located within” from “partially enclosed by,” the correct meaning of
`
`the term is “fully enclosed by,” as that is the only understanding of the term that gives full effect
`
`to Cricut’s prosecution disclaimer.
`
`The CALJ should therefore adopt HTVRONT’s construction.
`
`B.
`
`The ’758 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“the shell” (’758 patent, claims 19, 20)
`
`Staff and HTVRONT Proposed Construction
`
`Indefinite, no antecedent basis.
`
`Cricut Proposed
`Construction
`The lack of antecedent basis
`does not render the term
`indefinite. “The shell” is “a
`portion of the cover that at
`least partially encloses the
`substrate.”
`
`Cricut’s Opening Brief incorrectly asserts that the scope of the claim language “the shell”
`
`is clear in view of the specification and the claim amendments during prosecution. As described
`
`in HTVRONT’s and Staff’s Opening Briefs, both the specification and claim amendments fail to
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`clarify the scope of “the shell” in claims 19 and 20 of the ’758 patent and a person having
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the appropriate claim scope of “the shell”
`
`in those claims. RMB at 11-13; SMB at 22-24.
`
`At the outset, Cricut’s request that the CALJ use claim construction to correct “an
`
`obvious typographical error” fails to satisfy the Novo standard. CMB at 10-11 n.1 (citing Novo
`
`Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The Novo standard
`
`requires Cricut to establish both that “(1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based
`
`on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does
`
`not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo, 350 F.3d at 1354. For the first prong,
`
`it is not clear what, precisely, Cricut seeks to “correct”— “the shell” to “a shell” or “the shell” to
`
`“a portion of the cover that at least partially encloses the substrate”? In either case, it cannot meet
`
`prong one of the Novo test because neither the claim language nor the specification provide
`
`sufficient support for either correction. RMB at 12-13; see Novo, 350 F.3d at 1357 (holding that
`
`a district court may not correct errors where the specification and the figures “do not provide the
`
`necessary clarity to overcome the ambiguity of the claim”). Indeed, that Cricut itself does not
`
`seem to know what correction it is seeking from the CALJ further demonstrates that no
`
`correction is warranted. And Cricut fails on the second prong as well, given that the prosecution
`
`history suggests a different interpretation than either interpretation that Cricut proposes. RMB at
`
`12-13; see Novo, 350 F.3d at 1357-1358 (holding that claim amendments to overcome office
`
`actions are “not merely cosmetic” and “have substantive significance,” and that “[u]nder these
`
`circumstances, in order to make sense out of the patent, the district court was required to guess as
`
`to what was intended.”). Therefore, the CALJ should reject Cricut’s proposed “typographical
`
`correction.”
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Other cases that Cricut cites to support its vague request for a correction are likewise
`
`
`
`inapposite to the facts here. For example, in Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components
`
`Thereof, and Systems Containing the Same, despite the lack of antecedent basis the claim and
`
`specification provided “substantial guidance as to the meaning of the claim term in question,”
`
`whereas here, the specification and claims fail to inform POSITA as to the scope of the claim.
`
`Compare Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Init. Det., 2022 WL 7027226, at *50 (Sept. 9, 2022) with RMB
`
`at 12-13. Cricut’s reliance on Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and Components Thereof also
`
`fails. CMB at 11 (citing Inv. No. 337-TA-1344, Comm’n Op., 2023 WL 5605694, at *7 (Aug.
`
`24, 2023). In Bio-Layer Interferometers, the Commission reversed an ALJ’s finding of
`
`indefiniteness based on a typographical error in the claims that was apparent in view of the
`
`entirety of the claim and the specification, whereas here the specification and the prosecution
`
`history do not provide clarity in particular because the term “shell” was removed from
`
`independent claim 18 by amendment. Compare Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and
`
`Components Thereof, 2023 WL 5605694, at *8-19 with RMB at 12-13. Finally, Cricut’s reliance
`
`on Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co. is misplaced because the prosecution history and IPR
`
`briefing suggested that both the patentee and the patent office understood the term “case” and
`
`“cover” to have the same meaning; similar facts do not exist here, particularly in view of the
`
`claim amendment history. Compare 35 F.4th 1367, 1373–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) with RMB at 12-
`
`13. In short, the CALJ should reject Cricut’s request to correct its asserted claims.
`
`Cricut’s attempt to garner specification support likewise fails. As HTVRONT pointed out
`
`in its Opening Brief, the cover and the shell are distinct structures. RMB at 13. Cricut’s proposed
`
`construction, however, reads out the specification’s only embodiment of the shell and
`
`inappropriately conflates the shell with the cover. Id.; see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding an interpretation that excludes the only
`
`
`
`embodiment “is rarely, if ever, correct”).
`
`Finally, Cricut’s own description of the claim amendments during prosecution illustrates
`
`the ambiguity of “the shell” in the context of issued claims 19 and 20. RMB at 12-13; SMB at
`
`24. Cricut’s argument demonstrates that there are multiple ways to interpret “the shell” from the
`
`claim amendments. CMB at 14-15. For example, as-issued claim 19 and 20 could depend from a
`
`claim that appropriately recites an antecedent basis (i.e., as-issued claim 1 instead of claim as-
`
`issued claim 18). Claims 19 and/or 20 could be “corrected” to recite “a shell” instead of “the
`
`shell.” Or perhaps the patentee meant to strike out “the shell” from claim 19 and replace it with
`
`“a portion of the cover that at least partially encloses the substrate,” as Cricut now proposes. A
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art can only guess which interpretation the patentee intended,
`
`and so the claims are invalid as indefinite. RMB at 13; Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).
`
`C.
`
`The ’646 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“planar” (’646 patent, claims 9, 11, 13, 16)
`
`Cricut Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`HTVRONT Proposed
`Construction
`“flat, i.e., no curvature”
`
`Staff Proposed
`Construction
`Plain meaning, such as “flat,
`i.e., no curvature”
`
`Cricut implies that there is no controversy between the parties surrounding the term
`
`“planar” (CMB at 17), but Cricut is wrong. As HTVRONT explained in its Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, HTVRONT expects Cricut to argue that displays with curved surfaces satisfy
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of “planar,” which HTVRONT disputes. The CALJ should enter
`
`a construction that confirms that “planar” means “flat, i.e., no curvature.” See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.
`
`v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`As an initial matter, HTVRONT agrees with the Staff that “flat, i.e., no curvature” is the
`
`
`
`plain meaning of “planar.” SMB at 24-25; RMB at 13-14. Cricut too appears to argue for a
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” construction but refuses to clarify what it believes that “plain and
`
`ordinary meaning” to be, instead contending that “[t]he term ‘planar’ is understandable on its
`
`own.” CMB at 15. As HTVRONT and the Staff demonstrated, “flat, i.e., no curvature” is an
`
`appropriate plain meaning understanding of the term as it is used in the ’646 patent. Indeed,
`
`Cricut cannot demonstrate that the intrinsic record compels an alternate meaning. RMB at 14-16;
`
`SMB at 25. In fact, Cricut agrees with HTVRONT that Figure 8A shows the planar surface
`
`which, as HTVRONT demonstrated, depicts a flat surface without curvature. CMB at 15-16;
`
`RMB at 15. In view of this agreement, and its agreement that neither HTVRONT nor Staff
`
`“intend[] to exclude a tilted display or impose a level of precision beyond what would be
`
`expected by a person of ordinary skill,” it is difficult to understand why Cricut would not agree
`
`to HTVRONT and Staff’s proposed plain meaning construction—unless it seeks to have the term
`
`broadened beyond this plain meaning so it could encompass curved displays.
`
`Cricut’s argument that “the word ‘flat’ could be read to add a requirement that the display
`
`be horizontal or level” fails on the merits as well. CMB at 16. Setting aside the parties’ meet and
`
`confer, Staff and HTVRONT’s proposed construction makes clear that “flat” simply means “no
`
`curvature.” RMB at 13; SMB at 24-25. No party proposes limiting the claim to “horizontal” or
`
`non-“tilted” displays as Cricut suggests. CMB at 16-17.
`
`Cricut’s reliance on Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. is also misplaced because
`
`HTVRONT and Staff are not seeking to “add[ a] negative limitation.” CMB at 17 (citing 334
`
`F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). To the contrary, “flat, i.e., no curvature” is simply the
`
`definition of “planar,” as confirmed by multiple dictionaries, which demonstrate that something
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`that is “planar” cannot be a curved. SXM-5 (planar defined as “flat,” “[h]aving a two-
`
`
`
`dimensional characteristic,” “lying in one plane”); RXM-5 (planar defined as “1. Of, relating to,
`
`or situated in a plane. 2. Flat.”; flat defined as “Being without slope or curvature: a flat line on a
`
`chart”) (emphasis in original); RXM-7 (planar defined as “lying in one plane; flat”); RXM-8
`
`(flat defined as “having a level surface; without curves or bumps”).
`
`For these reasons, and as explained in Staff and HTVRONT’s initial briefs, the CALJ
`
`should adopt Staff and HTVRONT’s construction of this claim term.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, HTVRONT requests entry of its proposed constructions in
`
`Sections VI.A. and VI.C., and a finding that the term identified in Section VI.B. is indefinite.
`
`Dated: March 6, 2025
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Helena Kiepura
`Helena Kiepura
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`500 Eighth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 202.799.4000
`Fax: 202.799.5000
`
`Matthew Satchwell
`Paulina Starostka
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: 312.368.4000
`
`Shaobin Zhu
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`701 Fifth Avenue
`Suite 6900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: 206.839.4894
`
`Benjamin Yaghoubian
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 400 North Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 310.595.3000
`
`Claire Schuster
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: 617.406.6000
`
`Peter VandeVort
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`555 Mission St, Suite 2400
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.836.2500
`
`Counsel for Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd.
`(f/k/a Hunan Sijiu Electronic Technology Co.,
`Ltd.) and Guangdong Rongtu Technology
`Co., Ltd.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF WORD LIMIT PURSUANT TO GROUND RULE 1.6
`
`The undersigned certifies Respondents’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief contains
`
`3,521 words, which is within the 5,000 word limit for responsive claim construction briefs
`
`pursuant to Ground Rule 7.2.
`
`
`
`/s/ Helena Kiepura
`Helena Kiepura
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`500 Eighth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 202.799.4000
`Fax: 202.799.5000
`
`13
`
`

`

`RXM-9
`RXM-9
`[REDACTED IN ITS
`[REDACTED IN ITS
`ENTIRETY]
`ENTIRETY|
`
`

`

`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
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1426
`
`I, Lisa M. Mix, hereby certify that on March 6, 2025, a copy of Respondents’ Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief was served on the following as indicated:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`Cheney1426@usitc.gov
`
`Counsel for Staff:
`
`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
`
`Complainant Cricut, Inc.:
`
`Jay H. Reiziss
`Alexander P. Ott
`Timothy M. Dunker
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, NW
`
`1615961965.1
`
`1
`
` Via EDIS
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
` Via Box
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
` Via Facsimile
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
` Via Facsimile
` Via Email
`
`

`

`Washington, DC 20001
`
`David J. Tobin
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street Suite 1900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`James M. Oehler
`Tessa M. Kroll
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Email: cricutitc@mwe.com
`
`/s/ Lisa M. Mix
`Lisa M. Mix
`Case Manager
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`1615961965.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`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
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1426
`
`I, Lisa M. Mix, hereby certify that on March 12, 2025, a copy of Respondents’ Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief (Public Version) was served on the following as indicated:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`Cheney1426@usitc.gov
`
`Counsel for Staff:
`
`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
`
`Complainant Cricut, Inc.:
`
`Jay H. Reiziss
`Alexander P. Ott
`Timothy M. Dunker
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`1615534223.1
`
`1
`
` Via EDIS
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
` Via Box
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Overnight Courier
` Via Facsimile
` Via Email
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Deliv