Certain Crafting Machines and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1426 (Violation)
U.S. International Trade Commission
Holding
The Commission affirmed, as supplemented, the finding that Cricut established the economic prong of the domestic industry for the D563 patent and found a violation of section 337 as to that patent. It issued a general exclusion order for the D563 patent, limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against the defaulting respondents, and set a 100% bond.
Why It Matters
The GEO bars importation of crafting machines (heat presses) infringing the D563 patent from any source, which reaches the many online-sold lookalike products. The LEOs and CDOs target the defaulting respondents on the '646 and D090 patents. The Commissioners disagreed on how to assess the significance of domestic labor investment, which could draw scrutiny on appeal, but no party petitioned for review of the FID.
Full Summary
Key Points
- Domestic industry: on its own-initiative review, the Commission affirmed and supplemented the finding that Cricut's domestic labor investment in EasyPress products is significant under section 337(a)(3)(B) for the D563 patent, relying on domestic-versus-foreign labor comparisons and a cost of goods sold comparison; Commissioner Kearns and Commissioner Karpel filed separate views on the approach.
- Unreviewed findings stood: no violation as to the '758 and D214 patents, no infringement by HTVRONT's redesigned products, and the D724 and D237 allegations were moot.
- General exclusion order for the D563 patent: issued under both section 337(d)(2)(A), because defaulting Konduone is likely to circumvent an LEO, and 337(d)(2)(B), because of a pattern of violation and difficulty identifying sources.
- Defaulting respondents: LEOs under 337(g)(1) against Konduone ('646 patent) and the Vevor Respondents (D090 patent); CDOs against Konduone ('646 and D563) and the Vevor Respondents (D090) based on likely U.S. inventories. Commissioner Karpel concurred on different grounds.
- Public interest and bond: no public interest factor weighs against relief, and the bond during Presidential review is 100% of entered value because there is no pricing or royalty information.
New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity
- ITC · Oct. 13, 2026Certain Extrusion-Coated Magnet Wire; Inv. No. 337-TA-3940 (Violation)
- ITC · Oct. 12, 2026Certain Foundry Coke; Inv. No. 337-TA-1512 (Violation)
- ITC · Oct. 9, 2026Certain Vertical Power Delivery Systems, Components Thereof, and Computing Systems Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1526
- ITC · Oct. 9, 2026Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof I; Inv. No. 337-TA-1451 (Violation)
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026O'Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC