Cricut Inc. v. LiPing Zhan: Heat Press Patent Case Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Cricut Inc. v. LiPing Zhan |
| Case Number | 2:24-cv-00746 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Utah |
| Duration | Oct 2024 – Feb 2026 509 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Konduone Smart Heat Press Machine |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
South Jordan, Utah-based consumer electronics and creative technology company known for cutting machines and heat press devices.
🛡️ Defendant
Individual defendant, suggesting accused infringement may have originated through direct importation, online marketplace sales, or independent distribution.
Patents at Issue
This case involved two patents covering Cricut’s popular EasyPress heat transfer devices. The combination of a utility patent and a design patent reflects Cricut’s layered IP enforcement strategy. Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.
- • US11,905,646 B2 — Utility patent covering innovations in EasyPress device technology (e.g., heating element, temperature regulation).
- • USD893,563 S — Design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of Cricut’s EasyPress product.
Designing a similar heat press product?
Check if your heat press design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On February 25, 2026, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby entered an order stating: *”IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed for failure to prosecute.”* The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning no ruling was made on patent validity or infringement, and no damages were awarded.
Key Legal Issues
The dismissal for failure to prosecute is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which applies when a plaintiff fails to diligently advance their case. This outcome is significant because, despite Cricut engaging prominent IP counsel, the litigation stalled. This suggests a strategic decision by the plaintiff to cease pursuit against this specific individual defendant, possibly due to economic viability or collectability concerns, rather than on the merits of the patent claims themselves. The underlying patents remain valid and enforceable.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in heat press technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 47 related patents in the heat press technology space
- See which companies are most active in heat press and crafting IP
- Understand claim construction patterns for heat press devices
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own heat press technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents (including Cricut’s portfolio)
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Heat transfer device designs & heating elements
2 Patents at Issue
In Cricut’s EasyPress portfolio
Design-Around Options
Available for most heat press claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Failure-to-prosecute dismissals under FRCP 41(b) leave underlying patents intact and enforceable against other parties.
Search related case law →The absence of defense counsel of record, particularly for individual defendants, should factor into plaintiff prosecution strategy from the outset.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US11,905,646 B2 (utility patent, Application No. US17/644,867) and U.S. Design Patent No. USD893,563 S (Application No. US29/658,664), both related to Cricut EasyPress heat press technology.
The Utah District Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), meaning the plaintiff did not sufficiently advance the litigation. No ruling was made on patent validity or infringement.
The dismissal carries no precedential value on the merits but underscores that enforcement against individual defendants requires careful pre-litigation assessment. The patents-in-suit remain valid and enforceable.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case No. 2:24-cv-00746
- USPTO Patent Center — US11905646B2
- USPTO Patent Center — USD893563S
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.