Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01390/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD., ZMC-USA L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

KANEKA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2016-1390

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas in No. 4:11-cv-01052, Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy.

______________________ 

Decided: January 23, 2017

______________________ 

 BRIAN ROSENTHAL, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by 

PAUL WHITFIELD HUGHES, GARY HNATH; CHARLES 

STEPHEN KELLEY, TRENTON MENNING, Houston, TX.

 KEITH D. NOWAK, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by WILLIAM F. SONDERICKER; ROBERT MCGEE 

BOWICK, JR., Raley & Bowick, LLP, Houston, TX.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/23/2017
2 ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Kaneka Corporation (“Kaneka”) appeals from the 

Southern District of Texas’ summary judgment of noninfringement of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent 

No. 7,910,340 (“the ’340 patent”). For the reasons discussed below, we vacate and remand. 

BACKGROUND

The ’340 patent is directed to an industrial process for 

producing oxidized coenzyme Q10 (“CoQ10”), an antioxidant 

used in health supplements. Kaneka brought suit against 

Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. and ZMC-USA LLC (collectively, “ZMC”), asserting their manufacturing processes

infringe one or more claims of the ’340 patent. The dispute centers on the claims’ requirement of “oxidizing” 

reduced CoQ10, as recited in the two independent claims

at issue, 22 and 33.1 The district court originally construed the term “oxidizing” to have its ordinary and 

customary meaning, rejecting Kaneka’s argument that 

the “oxidizing” term requires “increasing the rate” of 

oxidizing reduced CoQ10. Both parties submitted expert 

reports opining on whether ZMC’s processes satisfy the 

“oxidizing” limitation under the district court’s construction.

Meanwhile, in a separate appeal concerning the same 

patent, a panel of this court construed the term “oxidizing” to mean “some action resulting in oxidation.” Kaneka 

 

1 Claim 22 requires “oxidizing thus-obtained reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme Q10” and 

claim 33 requires “oxidizing the extracted reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme Q10.”

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/23/2017
ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION 3

Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., 790 F.3d 1298, 

1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Approximately two weeks after 

Kingdomway issued, the district court held a status 

conference to address the impact of the Kingdomway

construction on the proceedings. At the conference, 

Kaneka stated that its expert, Dr. Sherman, “looked at 

the Federal Circuit decision in detail and [ ] has no need 

to file a revised report.” J.A. 14895:7–9. ZMC responded 

that their expert would like to supplement his report, to 

which Kaneka objected, arguing both its and ZMC’s 

expert reports addressed the issue of active oxidation, as 

required by Kingdomway. The district court determined 

that ZMC could file a supplemental expert report by 

July 16 and that Kaneka could respond to or depose 

ZMC’s expert by August 1. 

July passed and ZMC did not submit a supplemental 

expert report, and thus Kaneka did not respond to or 

depose ZMC’s expert. Instead, on August 13, ZMC moved 

for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the 

“oxidizing” limitation. In its motion, ZMC argued that 

Kaneka failed to show “what oxidation, if any, of coenzyme Q10 during ZMC’s process is attributable to active 

oxidation above the level of passive oxidation that naturally occurs throughout ZMC’s process.” J.A. 14821. ZMC 

also argued that Dr. Sherman’s expert opinion of infringement, based on the district court’s pre-Kingdomway

claim construction of “oxidizing,” was now irrelevant and 

could not be relied on by the court.

The district court agreed with ZMC’s interpretation of 

the Kingdomway construction, determining that “oxidizing” required “some amount of oxidation, in excess of that 

which occurs naturally from exposure to ambient air.” 

J.A. 48. It interpreted ZMC’s criticism of Dr. Sherman’s 

report on the “oxidizing” limitation as a motion to exclude 

and granted it, agreeing his opinion was “irrelevant” 

based on a “now incorrect” construction. J.A. 46–51. It 

denied Kaneka’s alternative request to supplement 

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/23/2017
4 ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION

Dr. Sherman’s report. The district court held that, based 

on the record before it, Kaneka failed to provide evidence 

that the oxidation in ZMC’s manufacturing process was 

the result of ZMC’s active processes to oxidize CoQ10, as 

compared to passive oxidation, and granted summary 

judgment of noninfringement. Kaneka timely appealed. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

For issues not unique to patent law, we apply the law 

of the regional circuit where this appeal would otherwise 

lie, which in this case is the Fifth Circuit. LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quana Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 66 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of 

discretion. Id. We review decisions on motions for summary judgment de novo. Id. Summary judgment is 

appropriate when, drawing all justifiable inferences in the 

nonmovant’s favor, “the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 

(1986).

A. Claim Construction of “Oxidizing”

At the outset, Kaneka argues the district court “improperly changed” our construction of “oxidizing” in 

Kingdomway from “some action resulting in oxidation” to 

an action that increases the amount of oxidation above a 

baseline of passive oxidation. It argues the district court’s 

changed construction led it to erroneously exclude 

Dr. Sherman’s expert report and grant summary judgment of noninfringement. We agree in part.

In Kingdomway, we held “oxidation requires an active 

step.” 790 F.3d at 1305. We explained that “because the 

claims affirmatively recite the step of ‘oxidizing,’ ‘oxidizing’ cannot be interpreted as doing nothing, or to simply 

allow oxidation to occur on its own.” Id. This construcCase: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/23/2017
ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION 5

tion “requir[es] active oxidation during the oxidation step

. . . but does not exclude passive oxidation during other 

steps.” Id. at 1306.2

The district court interpreted our construction to 

mean “some amount of oxidation, in excess of that which 

occurs naturally from exposure to ambient air, must be 

caused by an ‘active step’ in the coenzyme Q10 manufacturing process.” J.A. 48 (emphasis added). This is not 

precise. The only bounds provided by Kingdomway on 

what constitutes an “active step” or “active oxidation” is 

that it does not require use of an oxidizing agent. 790 

F.3d at 1306. The opinion emphasizes that there must be 

“some action resulting in oxidation”; the oxidizing step

“cannot be interpreted as doing nothing, or to simply 

allow oxidation to occur on its own.” Id. at 1305–06 

(emphasis added). But the opinion does not state that to 

be an active step, the oxidation rate must be greater than 

that of passive oxidation. And it is silent as to any degree 

of oxidation that would be necessary to qualify as active 

oxidation. The opinion simply requires that there be 

some action that results in oxidation. Id. at 1307. 

A review of the district court’s construction of “oxidizing” on appeal in Kingdomway frames the Kingdomway 

construction. There, the district court held that “oxidizing” required, inter alia, “active conversion of the reduced 

CoQ10 into oxidized CoQ10,” which was supported by the 

specification’s examples using an oxidizing agent in the 

oxidizing step. Kaneka Corp. v. Kingdomway Grp. Co., 

No. 2:11-cv-02389, 2013 WL 4647299, at *8 (C.D. Cal. 

July 24, 2013), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 790 F.3d 

 

2 The question whether the term “oxidizing” requires an oxidizing agent was before the prior panel of 

this court, and we are bound by their decision that it does 

not. See id. Thus, it is not a decision that we can review.

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/23/2017
6 ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION

1298. In adopting its “active conversion” construction, the 

district court rejected an alternative proposed construction that “oxidizing” means “‘increasing the rate’ of conversion to oxidized CoQ10.” Id. at *7–8. The district court 

reasoned that “[w]ithout a baseline reference for comparison, a person of skill in the art cannot know whether a 

rate of conversion is increased,” making such a construction “too vague to adopt.” Id. at *8.

On appeal, we “agree[d] that oxidation requires an active step,” but held “it does not require the use of an 

oxidizing agent.” Kingdomway, 790 F.3d at 1305–06. The 

opinion does not place additional qualifications on what 

must occur to be an “active step.” And although discussed 

in briefing to this court, see Appellees’ Br. 46–47, Kingdomway, No. 14-1373 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2014), the Kingdomway court did not require “increased oxidation” “in 

excess of that which occurs naturally from exposure to 

ambient air.” See J.A. 48.

Against this backdrop, we consider Kaneka’s arguments that the district court (1) abused its discretion in 

excluding Mr. Sherman’s expert report and (2) erred in 

granting ZMC’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. We affirm the district court’s exclusion of 

portions of Mr. Sherman’s expert report and vacate the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. 

B. Exclusion of Dr. Sherman’s Expert Report on Infringement 

Kaneka argues the district court abused its discretion 

in excluding the portions of Dr. Sherman’s expert report 

regarding the “oxidizing” limitation and denying its 

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/23/2017
ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION 7

alternative request to supplement its expert report.3 It 

argues Dr. Sherman’s report sufficiently embraces the 

Kingdomway construction of “oxidizing” and “plainly

identifies and describes the action taken by ZMC during 

its manufacturing process that results in oxidation.” 

Appellant’s Br. 31.

As discussed supra, we agree with Kaneka that the 

district court misinterpreted the Kingdomway construction. The district court required Dr. Sherman’s report to 

address more than was necessary under Kingdomway. 

See J.A. 50 (criticizing Dr. Sherman’s report for not addressing whether ZMC’s processes “actually do cause any 

amount of oxidation, beyond that which occurs naturally, 

as a result of the microbial cells’ exposure to ambient air”) 

(emphasis added). We, thus, need not decide whether it 

would have been an abuse of discretion to exclude 

Dr. Sherman’s opinions regarding the “oxidizing” limitation under the district court’s initial interpretation of 

Kingdomway. 

 We also decline to assess Dr. Sherman’s report in the 

first instance to determine the relevance of his opinions in 

light of our claim construction conclusions. We leave that 

question, as well as the question of whether to allow one 

or both parties’ experts an opportunity to supplement 

their reports in response to our opinion. 

 

3 Kaneka also appeals several of the district court’s 

evidentiary rulings unrelated to the court’s grant of 

summary judgment. Kaneka argues the district court 

erred in (1) denying its motion to compel test results 

relating to a different limitation; (2) excluding testimony

regarding that limitation; and (3) excluding testimony of 

its damages expert. Because these issues do not affect the 

summary judgment entered by the district court, we 

decline to review them.

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/23/2017
8 ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION

C. Grant of Summary Judgment of Noninfringement 

Even without Dr. Sherman’s report, Kaneka argues

that ample evidence precluded the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment of noninfringement. We agree.

The district court determined, viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to Kaneka, that “no reasonable 

fact finder could conclude that the oxidation step in ZMC’s 

process results from an ‘active step,’” as required by 

Kingdomway. J.A. 53. It explained, “Kaneka has not 

produced any evidence to show that the oxidation levels 

would have been different, if . . . ZMC had taken no action 

at all.” J.A. 54. Here, the district court’s misinterpretation of the Kingdomway construction marred its analysis. 

To meet the “oxidizing” limitation, ZMC’s processes need 

not produce a “different” rate of oxidation. There simply 

must be “some action resulting in oxidation.” Kingdomway, 790 F.3d at 1307. The Kingdomway court simply 

required that the oxidation occurred via an “active step.”

Evidence showing that the oxidation achieved from 

ZMC’s active steps is greater than passive oxidation is one 

way in which Kaneka could support its infringement 

theory—and possibly the most persuasive way—but this 

level of evidence is not necessary to show infringement. 

Particularly at the summary judgment stage, the court 

must focus its inquiry on what a reasonable jury could 

find, not what evidence may be the most compelling. 

Portions of the district court’s analysis appear to heighten 

Kaneka’s burden to defend ZMC’s motion for summary 

judgment. See, e.g., J.A. 53 (criticizing Kaneka’s evidence 

because “it does not show that that oxidation is, in fact, a 

result of actions by ZMC”) (emphasis added). The district 

court’s own concessions that the evidence “might suggest 

that oxidation occurs” and “shows that oxidation could

result from ZMC’s actions” indicate that an issue of material fact exists. See id. Our review of the evidence confirms our understanding.

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/23/2017
ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION 9

Evidence in the record details ZMC’s manufacturing 

process for making oxidized CoQ10, which relevantly 

involves washing steps, drying the wet mass with compressed and pneumatic air, extracting the mass, and postextraction washing. Two studies conducted by ZMC show

that after the first washing step, the ratio of reduced

CoQ10 to oxidized CoQ10 went from 81.1% to 26.9% (first 

study) and 88.5% to 55.6% (second study). After the 

drying step, the same data shows the ratio of reduced

CoQ10 to oxidized CoQ10 went from 26.9% to 21.3% (first 

study) and 55.6% to 18.2% (second study). Both of these 

steps are active process steps. A ZMC witness testified 

that the pneumatic drying step occurs in an enclosed 

container. This evidence collectively raises an issue of 

material fact concerning whether ZMC’s washing and 

drying steps, during which 59.8–70.3% of the reduced 

CoQ10 became oxidized, constitute “some action resulting 

in oxidation” as required by claim 22. Kingdomway, 790 

F.3d at 1307. The question is not whether these steps 

would have caused more or less oxidation than passive 

oxidation. The question is whether these are active steps 

resulting in oxidation. 

Claim 33 requires the “oxidizing” step be performed 

on extracted reduced CoQ10. The same ZMC data shows 

that after the final post-extraction washing step, the ratio 

of reduced CoQ10 to oxidized CoQ10 went from 16.7% (first 

study) and 17.5% (second study) to 0%, meaning the 

CoQ10 became fully oxidized. ZMC’s expert, in discussing

a separate limitation not at issue here requiring an oxidizing agent, conceded that a “source of oxidation” that 

occurs in ZMC’s steps is oxygen, including from “ambient 

air dissolved in solutions.” J.A. 4539 ¶ 157. Evidence 

that (1) ZMC washes extracted reduced CoQ10, (2) oxygen 

dissolved in solutions used by ZMC is a “source of oxidation,” and (3) ZMC’s CoQ10 is fully oxidized after this step 

is complete, raises an issue of material fact of infringement.

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/23/2017
10 ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION

Under the proper construction, even without consideration of Dr. Sherman’s opinions, we conclude there is a 

dispute of material fact regarding whether ZMC’s processes meet the “oxidizing” limitation in claims 22 and 33. 

The district court erred in granting ZMC’s motion for 

summary judgment of noninfringement. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement

and remand for further proceedings. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Kaneka. 

Case: 16-1390 Document: 58-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/23/2017