Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02600/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02600-2/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 is QuicKutz’s Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction 

Order or in the Alternative Motion for Clarification of Claim Construction Order [Dckt. 

No. 176] (Doc. 186). 

QuicKutz contends that the Court erred by including the phrase “intended to be 

used for” or “intended to be used to” in the following constructions: 

 “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”; and 

 “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.” 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 198 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

(Doc. 176.) For each of these terms, Spellbinders’ proposed constructions included the 

adjective “predetermined” to modify “shape” or “pattern.” The Court found that “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[, cut, or stencil] the 

die’s intentionally defined pattern into paper or similar materials.” (Id.) However, the 

Court also found that “predetermined” does not adequately exclude other intentional 

features that may also be capable of forming random or inadvertent cutting, embossing, 

or stenciling, even though not intended for that purpose. (Id.) 

First, QuicKutz contends that intent cannot be the basis for determining 

infringement or anticipation. Plaintiffs agree that the intent to infringe is not an element 

of proving infringement or anticipation. 

QuicKutz also contends that because the term “media embossing aperture” is 

recited functionally, not structurally, “the appropriate inquiry is whether an aperture is 

capable of embossing, not whether the aperture was intended to emboss.” However, both 

parties agree that a patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either 

structurally or functionally and may assume the risks associated with defining an element 

functionally. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Relying on authority applying the doctrine of equivalents, QuicKutz further 

contends that a system can infringe if it is capable of performing an infringing function 

even if the infringing function is not an intended use of the system. See Intel Corp. v. 

U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Vulcan Eng’g Co. v. Fata 

Aluminum, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“When the claimed function is 

performed in the accused system, by the same or equivalent structure, infringement of 

that claim element is established.”). Here, however, replacing “intended to be used for” 

with “capable of” would make the constructions overbroad because almost any tangible 

object is capable of making some accidental or unintended cut, mark, or threedimensional impression in paper or card stock. In the context of the ’634 Patent, 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 198 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

therefore, it is inappropriate to use the phrase “capable of” instead of “intended to be used 

for” in the constructions of the terms “media embossing aperture,” “embellishing 

template,” and “embellishing wall.” See Koito Manuf’g Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 

381 F.3d 1142, 1150 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that an element of forethought and 

planning was “a logically essential part of the patent”). 

Second, QuicKutz contends that a claim term is indefinite if intent is required. 

More specifically, QuicKutz contends that the disputed constructions including the 

phrase “intended to be used for” are indefinite because they lack an objective standard. 

A patent specification must “conclude with one or more claims particularly 

pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint 

inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). “[C]laims are construed as one 

skilled in the art would understand them in light of the specification of which they are a 

part.” Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[A] 

patentee need not define his invention with mathematical precision in order to comply 

with the definiteness requirement.” Id. at 1341. The definiteness requirement “does not 

compel absolute clarity,” and “[o]nly claims ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly 

ambiguous’ are indefinite.’” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 

1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Whether a claim is invalid for indefiniteness requires a 

determination whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the 

claim is read in light of the specification.” Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 

F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 

403 F.3d 1331, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (the test for indefiniteness depends on whether 

the claim delineates to a skilled artisan the bounds of the invention). To be definite, 

however, “[t]he scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, 

subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention,” but 

must provide some objective standard. Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350. 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 198 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

Here, the constructions using the phrase “intended to be used for” are not 

ambiguous or without objective standard. As previously found, “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[, cut, or stencil] the die’s intentionally 

defined pattern into paper or similar materials.” It is not necessary to decide who must 

exhibit the requisite intent, when intent is determined, whether intent can change, and 

what showing is required to establish intent. It can be determined objectively whether a 

person skilled in the art would conclude that a die has an opening or projection that will 

cut, emboss, and/or stencil in an intended shape or pattern. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that QuicKutz’s Motion for Reconsideration of 

Claim Construction Order or in the Alternative Motion for Clarification of Claim 

Construction Order [Dckt. No. 176] (Doc. 186) is denied. 

Dated this 16th day of October, 2012. 

Case 2:09-cv-02600-NVW Document 198 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 4