Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02600/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02600-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Jeffery Caron and Spellbinders Paper 

Arts Company, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

QuicKutz Inc., a Utah corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV 09-02600-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are the parties’ respective claim construction briefs and 

responses to each other’s briefs, as well as the parties’ joint claim construction chart 

(Docs. 149-1, 158, 159, 165, 166). Having reviewed these materials and the patent at 

issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,469,634, the Court issues the following claim construction order. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. The Patent Generally 

The patent in question involves an apparatus, system, and method of embellishing 

sheet media (e.g., paper, card stock, etc.). This invention generally targets the 

scrapbooking industry. Figure 1 from the patent gives a general idea of the invention it 

claims: 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 13
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

This figure depicts what the patent variously describes as a “die” or an 

“embellishing template.” When pressed against sheet media, it can simultaneously 

emboss that media by forcing it through the hole in the middle (item 24) and “engrave” or 

even cut the media with the ridge surrounding the hole (items 30 and 32). Figure 2 

depicts this result in cross-section: 

Here, item 10a represents the die and the object above it represents a piece of paper that 

has been pressed into the die, forming an embossed impression (item 60) and 

simultaneously cutting that impression and some of the paper around it away from the 

rest of the paper (item 40). 

Although figures 1 and 2 depict a simple circle shape, the patent contemplates 

much more elaborate designs such as words and complex shapes. 

B. The Claims at Issue 

The parties have identified the following claims for potential construction: 

18. A one-piece dry embossing die for embossing and die 

cutting sheet media in a press comprising: a one-piece body 

having a media abutment surface and an oppositely disposed 

press force receiving second surface and an unobstructed 

media embossing aperture in the media abutment surface 

having an aperture wall extending through the one-piece body 

from the media abutment surface to the second surface; and a 

die blade extending from the media abutment surface and 

terminating in a cutting surface. 

19. The die defined in claim 18 wherein the die blade 

circumscribes the aperture. 

* * * 

21. The die defined in claim 18 wherein the body is formed of 

an etched material. 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 13
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

22. The die defined in claim 21 wherein the body is formed of 

metal. 

23. The die defined in claim 18 wherein the aperture is an 

etched aperture. 

* * * 

28. A method of embellishing media with a press having a 

press member for generating a press force, the method 

comprising: placing sheet media against a one-piece 

embellishing template having a media abutment surface, the 

media abutment surface having an embellishing wall 

extending therefrom and terminating in an embellishing 

surface and an aperture formed in the media abutment surface 

having an aperture wall extending through the one-piece 

embellishing template; pressing the media against the 

embellishing template media abutment surface; pressing the 

media into the aperture forming a protruding embellishment 

in the media; and pressing the media against the embellishing 

surface forming a second embellishment in the media. 

29. The method defined in claim 28 further comprising 

applying material to the media through the aperture using the 

aperture wall as a stencil. 

30. The method defined in claim 28 wherein the embellishing 

surface is a blade edge and the step of pressing the media 

against the embellishing surface further comprises die cutting 

the media. 

31. The method defined in claim 28 wherein the step of 

pressing the media against the embellishing surface further 

comprises pressing with a relatively lower force and forming 

a second protruding embellishment in the media with the 

embellishing surface. 

* * * 

33. The method defined in claim 28 wherein the step of 

pressing the media against the embellishing surface further 

comprises pressing with a relatively higher force and die 

cutting the media. 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 13
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

* * * 

35. The method defined in claim 28 wherein the pressing the 

media against the embellishing template media abutment 

surface, pressing the media into the aperture forming a 

protruding embellishment in the media, and pressing the 

media against the embellishing surface occur in the same 

press operation. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Claim construction is the process of “determining the meaning and scope of the 

patent claims asserted to be infringed.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 

967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim construction presumes that 

the scope of the claim cannot be adequately understood without some elaboration or 

rephrasing. In this process, “the [patent’s] specification is always highly relevant . . . . 

Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Invalidity Arguments 

As to certain claims, QuicKutz makes several arguments for invalidity based on 

indefiniteness. These arguments are premature and will therefore not be addressed in this 

order. The Court must first construe the claims before indefiniteness can be determined. 

Nonetheless, the Court has no duty to construe a claim so as to sustain its validity. “[I]f 

the only claim construction that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written 

description renders the claim invalid, then . . . the claim is simply invalid.” Rhine v. 

Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

B. Constructions to Which the Parties Stipulate 

1. “dry” (claim 18) 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, “dry” shall be construed as “used without 

applying heat.” 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 4 of 13
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. “embossing” (claim 18) 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, “embossing” shall be construed as “forming a 

three-dimensional impression in sheet media.” 

3. “embellishing”/”embellishment” (claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 35) 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, “embellishing” shall be construed as “altering 

the appearance of sheet media by cutting, embossing, or stenciling,” and “embellishment” 

shall be construed as “an alteration to the appearance of sheet media in the form of a cut, 

embossment, or stencil.” 

4. “embellishing surface” (claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 35) 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, “embellishing surface” shall be construed as 

“the termination or extreme edge of the embellishing wall.” 

C. Constructions the Parties Contest 

1. “one-piece” (claims 18, 28) 

Spellbinders proposes to construe “one-piece” simply as “unitary.” QuicKutz 

proposes “operable without a complementary piece (i.e., the die is not part of a 

male/female pair).” In support, both cite the same portion of the specification, which 

reads as follows: “The one-piece template 10a includes a single die piece, unlike 

conventional two-piece dies having a matching male piece and female piece . . . .” Col. 

3:7–9. The reference to “10a” in this passage correlates with Figure 1, reprinted above. 

QuicKutz’s construction is rooted in the cited portion of the specification, whereas 

Spellbinders’ proposed “unitary” is more vague than “one-piece” unconstrued. 

Spellbinders nonetheless draws “unitary” from a different portion of the specification. 

By way of background on Spellbinders’ argument, it is helpful to note (with reference to 

Figure 1) that item 14 refers to the “body” of the template, which “is generally hard and 

can be formed of metal, including but not limited to steel . . . or other materials hard 

enough to [repeatedly perform the template’s function].” Col. 3:10–16. The 

specification later states, “The template body 14 is preferably a unitary or one-piece unit 

formed of the template material described above. However . . . the template 10b can 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 5 of 13
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

include an optional backing 46 disposed on the second side 18 of the body 14.” Col. 

4:56–60. Spellbinders draws its proposed “unitary” construction from this passage. 

This use of “unitary” in the specification implies nothing more than that “unitary” 

is synonymous with “one-piece,” which is not helpful for current purposes. Spellbinders, 

however, draws from “unitary” what it calls “a slightly different, broader meaning” than 

“operable without a complementary piece,” namely that it excludes “(1) a group of 

multiple dies having the same shape and (2) a manufacturing sheet comprised of multiple 

die pieces.” (Doc. 159 at 8.) In other words, Spellbinders argues that “unitary” means 

both “operable without a complementary piece” and something to the effect of “existing 

in isolation from other like templates.” 

Spellbinders cites no support for its second meaning, which is certainly not an 

obvious interpretation of the cited language in the specification. If anything, that 

language suggests that “unitary” and “one-piece” mean “functional without the optional 

backing” — but this is tautological given that the backing is expressly optional. The 

specification suggests nothing about ensuring that the template is not part of “a group of 

multiple dies having the same shape” or “a manufacturing sheet comprised of multiple 

die pieces.” Indeed, the provenance of Spellbinders’ proposed construction is baffling. 

In response, QuicKutz suggests that Spellbinders is attempting to selectively 

exclude potentially invalidating prior art. QuicKutz’s response brief includes a 

photograph of what appears to be both a group of multiple dies having the same shape 

and a manufacturing sheet comprised of multiple die pieces. QuicKutz says this 

photograph represents “an exemplary sheet of dies sold by Mr. Dywan [one of the 

patent’s named inventors] to QuicKutz long prior to the earliest claimed priority date of 

the ’634 Patent.” (Doc. 165 at 4.) 

It need not be decided here whether QuicKutz has correctly divined Spellbinders’ 

motivations for offering its “unitary” construction. It suffices to say that the specification 

— “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 

(internal quotation marks omitted) — contains no support for Spellbinders’ proposed 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 6 of 13
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

construction. QuicKutz’s proposal, by contrast, comports with the meaning disclosed in 

the specification. “One-piece” will therefore be construed as “operable without a 

complementary piece (i.e., the die is not part of a male/female pair).” 

2. “media embossing aperture” (claim 18) 

Spellbinders proposes to construe “media embossing aperture” as “an opening 

passing completely through the body of the die or template and having a periphery of a 

predetermined shape to form an embossed impression corresponding to that 

predetermined shape on sheet media.” In support, Spellbinders cites the following 

passage from the specification: “The one or more apertures 24 can have similar shapes, or 

different shapes, which define an embossing pattern for forming an embossed impression, 

also referred to as an embellishment, in the media 12 during pressing as shall be 

described in further detail below.” Col. 3:38–43. 

QuicKutz by contrast proposes “a through hole or window extending through the 

template body capable of forming an embossed impression on sheet media.” QuicKutz 

cites the following from the specification: “The first surface 20 includes one or more 

apertures 24, which can also be referred to a [sic; ‘as’] through holes or windows 

extending through the template body 14.” Col. 3:28–31. 

In this instance, neither party’s proposal is adequate. A “media embossing 

aperture” is an aperture that can emboss media. If claim construction is required, it is 

only for two reasons. First, media and aperture are used in a manner that, although 

definitionally correct, are unfamiliar to the average speaker; and second, media here 

actually refers to something narrower than all forms of media. 

As for aperture, it simply means “opening” (from the Latin aperire, “to open”). 

Media, in a general sense, is just the plural of medium, which can refer to any means of 

transmitting information. In the context of this patent, however, media means what the 

parties have elsewhere described as “sheet media,” i.e., paper and similarly thin materials 

capable of holding an embossed impression. Col. 2:67–3:3 (“The media can be sheet 

material suitable for embellishing including, but not limited to, paper, card stock, 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 7 of 13
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

cardboard, metal, such as for example metal foil or other thin metals, and plastic, among 

others.”). Thus, at minimum, “media embossing aperture” can be construed as an 

opening in the die capable of embossing sheet media. 

Both parties’ proposed constructions add that the opening extends completely 

through the die. This is self-evident. If it did not extend completely through the die, it 

would not be an “opening.” It would be a dent or impression, but not an opening. 

Accordingly, there is no need to specify that the opening extends completely through the 

die. 

Spellbinders proposes adding that the opening has “a periphery of a predetermined 

shape to form an embossed impression corresponding to that predetermined shape.” 

Spellbinders’ intends its proposal to clarify that the opening “is more than any hole in the 

die body that might be capable of forming a random or inadvertent embossment.” (Doc. 

166 at 6.) QuicKutz counters that the specification contains no literal support for such a 

narrowing clause. However, the entire thrust of the patent is that these openings have 

intentionally defined shapes, and that an end-user would purchase a die because the user 

can emboss the die’s intentionally defined pattern into paper or similar materials. Thus, 

Spellbinders’ proposal is unobjectionable for lack of “literal support” in the specification. 

Nonetheless, Spellbinders’ proposed language does not actually express the 

meaning it hopes to convey. Specifically, “predetermined shape” does not exclude “any 

hole in the die body that might be capable of forming a random or inadvertent 

embossment.” For example, one might conceivably add a small circular opening in the 

corner of a die so that a set of dies could be kept together on a ring, like keys on a 

keychain. Such a hole has a “predetermined shape,” even though no one intends it to be 

used for embossing. 

Considering all the foregoing, “media embossing aperture” will be construed as

“an opening in the die capable of, and intended to be used for, embossing sheet media.” 

For clarity, “intended to be used for” refers both to the intent to use the opening to 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 8 of 13
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

emboss a pattern corresponding to the shape of the opening, and the intent to emboss 

sheet media. 

3. “embellishing template” (claims 28, 35) 

Spellbinders proposes “a die having features used for cutting, embossing, and/or 

stenciling predetermined patterns on sheet media.” Spellbinders cites the following from 

the specification as support: “Referring to FIGS. 1-3, a one-piece media embellishing 

template, or die is shown generally at 10a for embellishing media 12, which in the 

illustrated embodiment is sheet media.” Col. 3:4–6. 

QuicKutz proposes “an intermediate product resulting from chemically etching a 

template blank to form one or more dies, and which includes features used for cutting, 

embossing, and/or stenciling sheet media.” The basis of QuicKutz’s proposal is unclear. 

QuicKutz cites portions of the specification distinguishing a “template” from a “template 

blank” (i.e., an unadorned piece of metal that is eventually etched or otherwise 

transformed so that it becomes an “embellishing template,” complete with the “aperture,” 

“embellishing wall,” and so forth). But that distinction does not seem to be at issue here. 

Moreover, the patent does not require a template formed through chemical etching. 

Rather, chemical etching is part of a dependent claim (claim 21). Thus, QuicKutz’s 

proposal is inappropriate. 

The specification makes “embellishing template” synonymous with “die,” which 

is an appropriate term in this context. Moreover, both sides agree that the claim should 

be construed to specify that the die contains “features used for cutting, embossing, and/or 

stenciling . . . sheet media.” The only remaining argument is Spellbinders’ addition of 

“predetermined patterns on” where the ellipses appears in the previous quote. This 

reprises the parties’ previous arguments about intentionality. Again, “predetermined” 

does not adequately exclude other intentional features that might also cut, emboss, or 

stencil, even though not intended for that purpose. Taking that concern into account 

however, “embellishing template” shall be construed as “a die having features intended to 

be used for cutting, embossing, and/or stenciling on sheet media.” 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 9 of 13
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. “embellishing wall” (claim 28) 

Spellbinders proposes “a solid projection from the body of the die or template 

extending along the body in a predetermined pattern to form an embossed impression 

and/or cut corresponding to that predetermined pattern on sheet media.” QuicKutz 

proposes “a raised surface extending above the body of the die or template that is distinct 

from the aperture wall and is capable of forming an embossed impression and/or cutting 

sheet media.” The parties cite the same extended passages of the specification for their 

respective proposals, but reprinting those passages is unnecessary here. The real dispute 

over this construction again turns on Spellbinders’ “predetermined” language. That issue 

will be resolved as it has been above, by rephrasing the construction to accurately express 

Spellbinders’ meaning. QuicKutz’s addition of “distinct from the aperture wall” will be 

accepted given that Spellbinders does not object to defining “aperture wall” as “distinct 

from the embellishing wall” (see Part D.3, below). “Embellishing wall” will therefore be 

defined as “a solid projection from the body of the die or template intended to be used to 

form an embossed impression in sheet media, or to cut sheet media, or both.” 

D. Constructions Offered by QuicKutz Only 

QuicKutz offers several constructions that Spellbinders views as unnecessary, but 

to which Spellbinders does not object. 

1. “unobstructed” (claim 18) 

QuicKutz proposes to construe “unobstructed” as “a characteristic describing an 

aperture that allows for stenciling of the sheet media through the aperture without any 

material to impede the stenciling of the sheet media through the aperture.” However, 

“unobstructed” requires no such construction. It is not a term of art or otherwise in need 

of elaboration. Its plain, inherent meaning suffices. 

2. “die” (claims 18, 19, 21, 22, 23) 

QuicKutz proposes “any of various tools or devices for imparting a desired shape, 

form, or finish to a material or for impressing an object or material.” Given that “die” 

can mean something other than this definition (e.g., the singular of dice), QuicKutz’s 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 10 of 13
- 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

proposal will be accepted. “Die” will therefore be construed as “any of various tools or 

devices for imparting a desired shape, form, or finish to a material or for impressing an 

object or material.” 

3. “aperture wall” (claims 28, 29) 

QuicKutz proposes “a structure distinct from the embellishing wall extending 

through the die or template body without extending above the media abutment surface.” 

Given the specification’s repeated distinction between the embossing aperture and the 

embellishing wall, this construction is accepted. “Aperture wall” will therefore be 

construed as “a structure distinct from the embellishing wall extending through the die or 

template body without extending above the media abutment surface.” 

4. “protruding embellishment” (claim 28) 

QuicKutz proposes “a three dimensional impression extending from one side of 

the media.” With the addition of a hyphen, and of “sheet” before media, this construction 

is accepted. “Protruding embellishment” will therefore be construed as “a threedimensional impression extending from one side of the sheet media.” 

5. “stencil” (claim 29) 

QuicKutz proposes “application of material to sheet media through the aperture.” 

In light of how claim 29 uses “stencil,” this construction is improper. Claim 29 reads, 

“The method defined in claim 28 further comprising applying material to the media 

through the aperture using the aperture wall as a stencil.” “Stencil” is used here as an 

object, whereas QuicKutz’s construction treats it as an action. Seen in the full context of 

the claim, it requires no construction. 

6. “relatively lower force” (claim 31) 

QuicKutz proposes “a force sufficient to cause a die to create a protrusion on sheet 

media but insufficient to cause the die to cut sheet media.” This construction is helpful 

and will be adopted with a minor modification reflecting the fact that the force necessary 

to cause a protrusion without cutting is not constant between various types of sheet 

media. “Relatively lower force” will therefore be construed as “a force sufficient to 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 11 of 13
- 12 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

cause a die to create a protrusion on sheet media but insufficient to cause the die to cut 

that media.” 

7. “relatively higher force” (claim 33) 

QuicKutz proposes “a force sufficient to cause a die to cut sheet media.” This 

construction is helpful and will be adopted. “Relatively higher force” will therefore be 

construed as “a force sufficient to cause a die to cut sheet media.” 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, with reference to U.S. Patent No. 7,469,634: 

 “aperture wall” (claims 28, 29) shall be construed as “a structure distinct 

from the embellishing wall extending through the die or template body 

without extending above the media abutment surface”; 

 “die” (claims 18, 19, 21, 22, 23) shall be construed as “any of various tools 

or devices for imparting a desired shape, form, or finish to a material or for 

impressing an object or material”; 

 “dry” (claim 18) shall be construed as “used without applying heat”; 

 “embellishing surface” (claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 35) shall be construed as “the 

termination or extreme edge of the embellishing wall”; 

 “embellishing template” (claims 28, 35) shall be construed as “a die having 

features intended to be used for cutting, embossing, and/or stenciling on 

sheet media”; 

 “embellishing wall” (claim 28) shall be construed as “a solid projection 

from the body of the die or template intended to be used to form an 

embossed impression in sheet media, or to cut sheet media, or both”; 

 “embellishing” (claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 35) shall be construed as “altering 

the appearance of sheet media by cutting, embossing, or stenciling”; 

 “embellishment” (claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 35) shall be construed as “an 

alteration to the appearance of sheet media in the form of a cut, 

embossment, or stencil”; 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 12 of 13
- 13 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 “embossing” (claim 18) shall be construed as “forming a three-dimensional 

impression in sheet media”; 

 “media embossing aperture” (claim 18) shall be construed as “an opening 

in the die capable of, and intended to be used for, embossing sheet media”; 

 “one-piece” (claims 18, 28) shall be construed as “operable without a 

complementary piece (i.e., the die is not part of a male/female pair)”; 

 “protruding embellishment” (claim 28) shall construed as “a threedimensional impression extending from one side of the sheet media”; 

 “relatively higher force” (claim 33) shall be construed as “a force sufficient 

to cause a die to cut sheet media”; and 

 “relatively lower force” (claim 31) shall be construed as “a force sufficient 

to cause a die to create a protrusion on sheet media but insufficient to cause 

the die to cut that media.” 

Dated this 20th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 176 Filed 08/20/12 Page 13 of 13