DCT

2:24-cv-00747

Cricut Inc v. Shanghai Sishun E Commerce Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Cricut, Inc. v. Shanghai Sishun E-commerce Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00747, D. Utah, 10/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities that have committed acts of infringement within the District of Utah by placing infringing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they would be sold in Utah, and by selling products directly to consumers in Utah through their websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Vevor-branded electronic cutting machines infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's cutting machine.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer crafting technology sector, specifically concerning the visual design and trade dress of electronic do-it-yourself cutting machines.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that the Asserted Patent is concurrently being litigated against the same Defendants in a parallel investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which may affect the strategy and timing of this district court action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-02-20 Earliest Priority Date for D'090 Patent
2024-05-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,029,090 Issued
2024-10-04 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,029,090 - "Electronic Cutting Machine"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,029,090, "Electronic Cutting Machine", issued May 28, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that after Cricut released its products with an "innovative look and feel," the market saw a "deluge of copycats" that sought to "mimic" the design of Cricut's products, potentially harming Cricut's brand and consumer trust (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The D'090 Patent protects the "non-functional visual design" of an electronic cutting machine (Compl. ¶36). The patent's single FIGURE and description claim the specific ornamental appearance of the machine, which the complaint characterizes as an "integration of smooth, inviting and rounded cover end shapes with two aesthetically proportioned rectangular open panel shapes" that creates a "cohesive ornamental design" (Compl. ¶36; D'090 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The claimed design is for the machine in an open configuration.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that this specific "look and feel" is commercially important because it "enables its users to instantly recognize the cutting machines as authentically 'Cricut®' and promotes consumer awareness and trust" (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an electronic cutting machine, as shown and described" (D'090 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's FIGURE, which consist of the following visual elements:
    • The overall housing of the machine body.
    • The distinct, rounded end caps on the left and right sides of the housing.
    • The configuration of the top lid and front tray in an open position.
    • The appearance of certain visible interior guide rails and the cutting head carriage.
    • The broken lines in the FIGURE, depicting the internal cutting mechanism and other environmental structures, explicitly form no part of the claimed design (D'090 Patent, p. 4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Vevor Vinyl Cutter Machine" (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as electronic cutting machines manufactured in China and imported into the United States for sale (Compl. ¶20). They are allegedly sold directly to U.S. consumers, including those in Utah, through various online channels such as Vevor.com, Amazon.com, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The complaint frames these products as "copycats" designed to "capitalize off the industry created by Cricut" (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 1," which was not included with the filed document. The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the ornamental design of the accused Vevor Vinyl Cutter Machine is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'090 Patent. Under the governing "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement, Cricut alleges that an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs of electronic cutting machines, would be deceived into believing the Vevor product is the same as the patented Cricut design (Compl. ¶¶37-38). The complaint includes a figure from the patent, an isometric view of the machine in an open configuration, to define the claimed design (Compl. p. 11, FIGURE).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central dispute will be a visual one: whether the overall appearance of the accused Vevor machine is "substantially the same" as the claimed design. The analysis will focus on the holistic visual impression created by the elements shown in solid lines in the patent's FIGURE, while disregarding any functional aspects or elements shown in broken lines.
  • Technical Questions: While the complaint alleges infringement, it does not provide a side-by-side visual comparison of the accused product and the patented design. This raises the evidentiary question of what the degree of visual similarity actually is. The defense may focus on any perceived differences in shape, proportion, or ornamentation between its product and the patent's drawings, arguing these differences are sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, formal claim construction is rare, as the figures typically define the claim scope. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression rather than the definition of individual words.

  • The Term: "ornamental design ... as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the entire claim, and its interpretation is central to the dispute. The scope is defined by the patent's drawing. Practitioners may focus on which specific features of the claimed design contribute most significantly to its overall aesthetic impression and how those compare to the accused product. The distinction between purely ornamental features (protected) and functional features (unprotected) may become a key battleground.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A broader view would argue that the claim covers any design with the same overall visual impression, even if there are minor differences in specific details. The complaint supports this by focusing on the "unified and cohesive ornamental design" and the "overall visual design" rather than a component-by-component match (Compl. ¶36).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A narrower view would limit the claim's scope to a design that is extremely close to the patent's drawings. The patent itself provides a basis for this by explicitly disclaiming the subject matter shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design" (D'090 Patent, p. 4). A defendant would likely argue that this disclaimer, along with any other differences, confines the patent to its precise depiction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants actively promote the sale of the accused products and provide product manuals that instruct users on their use (Compl. ¶¶39-40). It further alleges the products are "specially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner" and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶40).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the D'090 patent, which the complaint contends exists due to the parallel ITC complaint and, at a minimum, from the filing and service of the instant complaint (Compl. ¶¶40-41).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Vevor cutting machine substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the D'090 patent's FIGURE?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be the significance of differences: To what extent do any visual differences between the accused product and the patent's drawings—such as variations in curvature, proportion, or surface ornamentation—alter the overall aesthetic impression, and are they sufficient to distinguish the designs in the marketplace?
  3. A determinative procedural question will be the impact of the parallel ITC case: How will the concurrent ITC investigation, which involves the same patent and parties, influence discovery, claim construction, potential stays, and settlement leverage in this district court action?