DCT

2:25-cv-00071

Cricut Inc v. Hunan Sijiu Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00071, D. Utah, 01/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are foreign residents who have committed acts of infringement in the district, including selling products through direct-to-consumer websites and online marketplaces with shipping to Utah.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ electronic cutting machines, sold under the "LOKLiK" and "HTVRont" brands, infringe a U.S. design patent for an electronic cutting machine.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for personal electronic die-cutting machines, a key product category in the consumer do-it-yourself (DIY) and crafting industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patent and their infringement "at least since January 29, 2025, based on correspondence from Cricut's counsel to Defendants' counsel," which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-01 U.S. Patent No. D877,214 Application/Priority Date
2020-03-03 U.S. Patent No. D877,214 Issued
2025-01-29 Alleged date of Defendants' knowledge of the D'214 Patent
2025-01-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D877,214 - “Electronic Cutting Machine”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D877,214, “Electronic Cutting Machine,” issued March 3, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that in the competitive crafting market, a distinctive product appearance is valuable for establishing brand identity and consumer trust (Compl. ¶27-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The D877,214 patent claims a specific ornamental design for an electronic cutting machine. The design features a closed configuration with a smooth, elongated, and rounded body, creating what the complaint describes as a "unified and cohesive ornamental design" (Compl. ¶38; ’214 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The patent drawings use solid lines to define the claimed shape and broken lines to disclaim specific functional elements or internal components, focusing the legal protection on the overall visual impression of the machine's housing (’214 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Cricut's "innovative look and feel" distinguishes its products and that copycat designs harm both Cricut and the crafting industry by creating customer confusion and dissatisfaction (Compl. ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of the D’214 Patent is for "The ornamental design for an electronic cutting machine, as shown and described" (’214 Patent, Claim).
  • The claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance of the machine as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1 through 8 of the patent.
  • The patent description explicitly notes that "The broken lines in the Figures show portions of the electronic cutting machine which form no part of the claimed design" (’214 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "LOKLiK iCraft Cutting Machine" as a representative example of the "Infringing Cutting Machine Products" (Compl. ¶34). Defendants sell products under the "HTVRont" and "LOKLİK" brand names (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are electronic cutting machines for the DIY and crafting market, capable of cutting materials like vinyl and paper (Compl. ¶26, ¶34).
  • The complaint alleges Defendants manufacture these products in China and import them for sale in the United States through various channels, including their own websites (htvront.com, loklik.com), Amazon, and Walmart (Compl. ¶18-20). The complaint includes a graphic from the Defendants' website showing a "sales network" with arrows indicating a flow of goods from China to a large customer base in the United States (Compl. ¶20). This image, titled "HTVRONT SALES NETWORK," visualizes the allegation that Defendants specifically target the U.S. market (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on a comparison of the accused product's design to the patented design from the perspective of an "ordinary observer."

The complaint alleges that Defendants' cutting machines infringe the D’214 Patent by embodying a design that is confusingly similar to the one claimed (Compl. ¶39-40). The core of this allegation is a visual comparison between the figures of the D’214 Patent, which depict a machine with a smooth, rounded, and elongated form (Compl. ¶32), and the appearance of the accused LOKLiK iCraft Cutting Machine. A photograph of the accused product shows it in a closed configuration with a similarly smooth and rounded exterior shape (Compl. p.13, following ¶34). The complaint asserts this visual mimicry was intentional, stating that competitors "have designed their products to mimic the innovative look and feel of the Cricut products" (Compl. ¶28).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Overall Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused LOKLiK machine is the same as the patented design. The analysis will compare the overall visual impression, not just discrete features.
    • Impact of Logos and Minor Features: The court may have to consider whether differences in branding (e.g., the "LOKLiK" logo on the accused product) or minor variations in surface contours are sufficient to distinguish the accused design from the patented one in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
    • Scope of "As Shown and Described": A key issue will be defining the precise scope of the patented design based on the patent's figures. The analysis will focus only on the elements shown in solid lines, as the elements in broken lines are explicitly disclaimed and do not form part of the protected design (’214 Patent, Description).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the design itself, as depicted in the drawings. Formal construction of text-based terms is rare. The primary interpretive task is determining the scope of the design.

  • The Term: The scope of the claimed "ornamental design for an electronic cutting machine."
  • Context and Importance: The determination of infringement hinges entirely on what visual features are included within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between the solid and broken lines in the patent's figures, as this is the primary tool for defining the design's boundaries.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the overall visual impression, not a collection of individual features. An argument for a broader scope might focus on the overall shape and configuration—the rounded ends, the smooth, continuous top surface, and the general proportions—as constituting the core of the design shown in solid lines in Figures 1-8 (Compl. ¶32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument for a narrower scope would emphasize that the claim does not cover any general concept of a rounded cutting machine, but only the specific ornamental design "as shown and described" (’214 Patent, Claim). This interpretation would focus on the precise curves and contours depicted in the solid lines of the patent figures, arguing that any deviation in the accused product, however minor, places it outside the claim's scope. The disclaimer of features in broken lines explicitly limits the scope of protection (’214 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendants provide "online tutorials," "product manuals and quick start guides" that instruct end users on how to use the allegedly infringing products (Compl. ¶42). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are "specially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after receiving notice of the D’214 Patent. The complaint specifically pleads knowledge "at least since January 29, 2025, if not earlier," based on pre-suit communications between the parties' legal counsel (Compl. ¶41, ¶43).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused LOKLiK iCraft Cutting Machine substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’214 Patent, considering only the features depicted in solid lines?
  2. A second key issue will be one of willfulness: assuming infringement is found, can Cricut prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants' conduct was egregious enough to warrant enhanced damages, particularly based on the alleged notice provided on January 29, 2025?