Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01626/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01626-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ 

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

DOE 1-10,

Defendant

______________________ 

2015-1626

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Oregon in No. 1:09-cv-03022-PA, Senior Judge 

Owen M. Panner.

______________________ 

Decided: November 5, 2015

______________________ 

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA, Colton, CA, pro se.

DAVID G. MANGUM, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Salt 

Lake City, UT, for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRANDON J. MARK, C. KEVIN SPEIRS. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2015
2 YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA, Circuit Judge, and 

STARK, Chief District Judge.

∗

PER CURIAM. 

Dr. Aleksandr Yufa appeals from a district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of Hach Ultra Analytics, Inc., (“Hach”) on both Dr. Yufa’s patent infringement and emotional distress claims. Because we find no 

error in the district court’s decision, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Dr. Yufa is inventor and owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,034,769 and 6,346,983. Both patents claim methods and 

devices for determining the number and size of particles 

in fluids. Dr. Yufa, acting on his own behalf as a pro se 

litigant, has asserted the ’769 and ’983 patents against a 

number of parties, resulting in three prior appeals to this 

court.1

Dr. Yufa’s patents describe prior art particle detectors 

that use light scattering techniques. See ’769 patent, 2:4-

13; ’983 patent, 2:8-28. Light scattering detectors shine 

light through a fluid sample containing particles of various sizes. As light hits a particle, the light scatters, or 

reflects off the particle. The amount of light scattered is 

related to the number and size of particles in the sample. 

∗

 The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, Chief District 

Judge, United States District Court for the District of 

Delaware, sitting by designation.

1 Yufa v. TSI, Inc., 600 F. App’x 747 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1868, 191 L. Ed. 2d 727 (2015) 

reh’g denied, 135 S. Ct. 2345, 191 L. Ed. 2d 1002 (2015); 

Yufa v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 575 F. App’x 881 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 955, 190 L. Ed. 2d 831 

(2015) reh’g denied, 135 S. Ct. 1486, 191 L. Ed. 2d 423 

(2015); In re Yufa, 452 F. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2015
YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 3

A sensor measures the intensity of the scattered light and 

outputs an analog electrical current with a voltage proportional to the measured intensity. The current is then 

amplified and processed into a digital signal to determine 

the number and size of particles in the sample. 

The prior art detectors described in Dr. Yufa’s patents 

use a well-known method to process the (amplified) analog electrical current into a digital signal that represents 

the number and size of particles in the sample. The 

method involves comparing the analog current voltage 

with a reference voltage that corresponds to a particular 

particle size. See ’769 patent, 3:3-15; ’983 patent, 2:18-29. 

If the detector’s voltage output exceeds the reference 

voltage, indicating that a particle size is larger than the 

size corresponding to the reference voltage, the detector 

outputs a digital value of “true.” If the detector’s voltage 

output falls below the reference voltage, indicating that a 

particle size is smaller than the size corresponding to the 

reference voltage, the detector outputs a digital value of 

“false.” The number of “true” values thus reflects the 

number of particles with sizes exceeding the size corresponding to the reference voltage. By using multiple 

reference voltages at different levels (corresponding to 

different particle sizes), the detector can count the number of particles within different size ranges. 

Dr. Yufa’s patents discuss problems with using an analog reference voltage. According to the ’983 patent, for 

example, reference voltage methods “create an insufficient 

signal to noise ratio, thereby limiting the sensitivity and 

efficiency of the . . . devices.” ’983 patent, 3:26-28. The 

’769 patent explains that this “non-precise analog method 

of comparison” cannot provide “sufficiently high sensitivity” to meet “increasing environmental requirements.” ’769 

patent, 3:16-18. The methods and devices claimed in ’769 

and ’983 patents are described as an improvement over 

the prior art. 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2015
4 YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 

A. Dr. Yufa’s Lockheed Martin Suit and Reexamination 

In June 2006, Dr. Yufa sued Lockheed Martin in the 

Central District of California, alleging infringement of 

certain claims of the ’769 and ’983 patents. Lockheed 

Martin requested that the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (PTO) reexamine all claims in the ’769

and ’983 patents. The PTO ordered reexamination in 

February 2007, and in March 2007, the district court 

stayed proceedings pending the PTO’s determination.

Certain claims of both patents survived reexamination. To overcome prior art rejections made during reexamination, however, Dr. Yufa amended claims of each 

patent to require that the particle detector not use a 

reference voltage. Method claim 1 of the ’769 patent was 

amended to recite the step of “converting each amplified 

signal to a digital form . . . without using a reference 

voltage . . . .” J.A. 82 (’769 patent reexamination certificate) (emphasis to amendment in original). Claims 4-6 

were similarly amended. Surviving apparatus claims 6-8 

of the ’983 patent were amended to require “conversion of

each of said voltage value signals to a digital form pulse 

without using a reference voltage to convert each of said 

voltage value signals.” J.A. 54 (’983 patent reexamination 

certificate) (emphasis to amendment in original). The 

district court action resumed, and Dr. Yufa amended his 

complaint to allege infringement of the reexamined 

claims.

In October 2013, Lockheed Martin moved for summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to all 

accused products. This motion was based in part on 

Lockheed Martin’s argument that the evidence could not 

support a finding of infringement because certain accused 

products did not operate without a reference voltage, as 

claims of the ’769 and ’983 patents require. After reviewing these accused products, the district court agreed with 

Lockheed Martin, finding that the relevant products use a 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2015
YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 5

reference voltage to convert analog current into a digital 

signal. The district court granted the motion for summary 

judgment on December 23, 2013, and entered final judgment on January 23, 2014. Dr. Yufa appealed, and this 

court affirmed the district court’s decision in a nonprecedential opinion. Yufa, 575 F. App’x at 881. 

B. Dr. Yufa’s Parallel Suit Against Hach

On March 5, 2009, Dr. Yufa filed a parallel suit 

against Hach in the District of Oregon, again alleging 

infringement of the ’769 and ’983 patents. As in the 

Lockheed case, the district court stayed the action pending PTO reexamination proceedings. Once the district 

court action resumed, Dr. Yufa amended his complaint to 

allege infringement of claims surviving reexamination, 

i.e., claims 1 and 4-6 of the ’769 patent and claims 6-8 of 

the ’983 patent. Dr. Yufa accused Hach particle counters 

sold under the MET ONE brand (all models in the R4500

series, the R4803, R4805, R4815, R4903, R4905, R4915, 

and all models in the 7000 series) and particle counters 

sold under the HIAC brand (the PM4000, 8000A, and 

9705), as well as two other devices known as the HLRD 

series and the MicroCount 05. Dr. Yufa also alleged 

emotional distress caused by Hach allegedly misrepresenting his achievements as its own achievements. 

Hach moved for summary judgment on all of 

Dr. Yufa’s claims. To support this motion, Hach submitted 

a declaration by Kenneth Girvin, a senior optical engineer 

at Hach. Mr. Girvin stated that each of the accused particle counters sold under the MET ONE and HIAC brands 

uses “a predetermined reference voltage as part of the 

process of converting a light detector’s amplified output 

into a digital signal.” J.A. 385, 387. As for the HLRD 

series and MicroCount 05, Mr. Garvin stated in his declaration that these products are optical sensors, not particle 

counters. J.A. 388. 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/05/2015
6 YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 

On the basis of Mr. Girvin’s declaration, Hach argued 

that the evidence could not support a finding of infringement or emotional distress. With respect to the MET ONE 

and HIAC brand particle counters, Hach explained that in 

the Lockheed case, the district court determined that the 

asserted claims of the ’769 and ’983 patents do not cover 

products that use a reference voltage, and thus the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents Dr. Yufa from relitigating the matter in this case. As for the HLRD series and 

MicroCount 05, Hach argued that the evidence could not 

support a finding that these products were particle counters at all. Finally, Hach argued that Dr. Yufa’s emotional 

distress claim depended on his patent infringement 

claims and thus should fall with those claims, or alternatively that Dr. Yufa’s emotional distress claim was insufficient under Oregon law. 

On May 30, 2014, the district court granted Hach’s 

motion for summary judgment. As for the HLRD series 

and the MicroCount 05, the district court found that the 

evidence showed that these products were not particle 

counters at all and thus could not be a basis for infringement. The court further found that one accused particle 

counter sold under the MET ONE brand, the R4805, was 

also one of the accused products in the Lockheed case, and 

thus Dr. Yufa was precluded from litigating the issue of 

infringement based on an identical particle counter. As for 

the remaining accused particle counters, the district court 

explained that because “a close identity exists between 

the relevant features of the accused device” and the device 

involved in the previous action, issue preclusion bars 

Dr. Yufa’s infringement claims based on those particle 

counters. J.A. 9 (quoting Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) 

Wood Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 535 F.3d 

1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The court therefore found 

the issue before it “identical, or nearly identical, to the 

issue previously decided by the Lockheed Court.” J.A. 10. 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/05/2015
YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 7

As for Dr. Yufa’s emotional distress claim, the court 

found that Dr. Yufa’s allegations fell short of demonstrating “outrageous in the extreme” conduct required by 

Oregon law. J.A. 12 (quoting Rockhill v. Pollard, 259 Or. 

54, 60 (1971)). Dr. Yufa’s appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).2 

DISCUSSION

The district court’s determination that Dr. Yufa’s infringement claims are barred by issue preclusion, and its 

grant of summary judgment, are questions of law reviewed de novo. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & 

Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 

Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 

1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Dr. Yufa challenges two aspects of 

the district court’s judgment on appeal: first, whether the 

issue decided in the Lockheed case is sufficiently similar 

for issue preclusion to bar Dr. Yufa’s infringement claims

against Hach; and second, whether the district court 

properly granted summary judgment on Dr. Yufa’s emotional distress claim. 

A. Issue Preclusion

We find no error in the district court’s application of 

issue preclusion. Issue preclusion serves “to bar the 

revisiting of ‘issues’ that have been already fully litigated.” Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360, 1366 

2 On December 27, 2012, Hach filed counterclaims, 

requesting, among other relief, declaratory judgment that 

the ’769 and ’983 patents are invalid or not infringed. 

After the district court granted summary judgment in 

Hach’s favor, Hach moved to voluntarily dismiss the 

counterclaims. To ensure a final, appealable judgment, see

Pause Tech. LLC v. TiVo Inc., 401 F.3d 1290, 1293 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005), the district dismissed the counterclaims without prejudice on July 7, 2014. 

 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/05/2015
8 YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 

(Fed. Cir. 2000). Four requirements must be met for a 

second suit to be barred by issue preclusion: (1) identity of 

the issues in a prior proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party 

defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues. Id. (citing numerous authorities). 

Dr. Yufa challenges only the district court’s application of the first requirement, i.e., the identity of issues, 

and only as the requirement applies to certain particle 

counters. Dr. Yufa does not dispute the district court’s 

conclusion that two accused products, the HLRD series 

and the MicroCount 05, are not particle counters and thus 

cannot infringe the ’769 or ’983 patents. Nor does 

Dr. Yufa address the district court’s conclusion that issue 

preclusion bars infringement claims based on Hach’s MET 

ONE R4805 product because the same product was involved in the Lockheed case. Dr. Yufa disputes only the 

district court’s application of issue preclusion to claims 

based on the remaining accused products. 

As for those accused products disputed on appeal, we 

find that the district court correctly concluded Dr. Yufa 

did not raise an issue of triable fact in response to Hach’s 

properly supported summary judgment motion. In response to Hach’s motion, Dr. Yufa cannot rest on “mere 

allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other admissible evidence specific facts” showing a genuine issue 

for trial. Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc., 526 F.3d 1253, 

1255–1256 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted); 

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1337 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). Mr. Girvin’s declaration supporting 

Hach’s motion stated that all accused particle counters

used a reference voltage. Acknowledging that Dr. Yufa 

disputed this evidence, the district court explained that 

Dr. Yufa made “only conclusory allegations and bare 

assertions in support of his arguments.” J.A. 10. Mere 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/05/2015
YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 9

denials or conclusory statements are insufficient to survive summary judgment. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 836 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). The district court therefore granted summary 

judgment that Hach’s particle counters cannot be the 

basis for infringement. 

Dr. Yufa’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. Dr. Yufa contends that some accused products convert analog signal to digital form without using a 

reference voltage. Dr. Yufa’s arguments appear to be 

based on two accused products sold under the HIAC 

brand, the 9705 and the PM4000. Much of the record 

evidence concerning these products is confidential. The

record evidence, however, establishes that both HIAC 

devices use a reference voltage. Dr. Yufa has not met his 

burden to point to record evidence from which a jury could 

reasonably conclude otherwise. See Conroy v. Reebok 

Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Given the 

absence of a material dispute about whether the accused 

products use a reference voltage, we agree with the district court that there is identity of issues between this and 

the prior proceeding. We therefore affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement 

based on issue preclusion. 

B. Emotional Distress

Dr. Yufa contends that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment on his emotional distress 

claim because the district court did not consider 

Dr. Yufa’s allegation that Hach misrepresented Dr. Yufa’s 

invention as its own. According to Dr. Yufa, the district 

court incorrectly characterized the emotional distress 

claim as based solely on alleged patent infringement. 

We conclude that the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Dr. Yufa’s emotional distress claim 

was proper. To the extent that Dr. Yufa’s claim was based 

on alleged patent infringement, the claim falls with the 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/05/2015
10 YUFA v. HACH ULTRA ANALYTICS, INC. 

court’s summary judgment of noninfringement. Even 

assuming Dr. Yufa is correct that his claim was also 

based on Hach’s alleged misrepresentation, and this 

argument was not waived in district court,3 Dr. Yufa’s 

claim cannot survive summary judgment. Dr. Yufa set 

forth no specific facts establishing a triable issue regarding Hach’s alleged misrepresentation. Nor do we find facts 

in the record that, if assumed true, would benefit 

Dr. Yufa’s claim. In short, Dr. Yufa’s misrepresentation

theory amounts to no more than a bare allegation. More 

was required to overcome Hach’s motion arguing that the 

emotional distress claim is insufficient under Oregon law. 

See Barmag Barmer, 731 F.2d at 836. We therefore affirm 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment on 

Dr. Yufa’s emotional distress claim. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment below in all respects. 

AFFIRMED

3 The district court concluded that Dr. Yufa “concedes that his claim for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress relies entirely upon his claims for patent infringement.” J.A. 12. Because we cannot find this concession in the record, we give Dr. Yufa’s misrepresentation 

argument the benefit of the doubt.

 

Case: 15-1626 Document: 40-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/05/2015