Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01399/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01399-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KANEKA CORPORATION, 

a Japanese Corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY GROUP COMPANY, 

a Chinese Corporation, 

PACIFIC RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL INC., 

a California Corporation, 

SHENZHOU BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD., a Chinese Corporation,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1373, -1399

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:11-cv-02389-MRPSS, Senior Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer.

______________________ 

Decided: June 10, 2015

______________________ 

KEITH D. NOWAK, Carter Ledyard & Milburn, LLP,

New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ROBERT MCGEE BOWICK, JR., Raley & Bowick, 

LLP, Houston, TX. 

REECE WERNER NIENSTADT, Mei & Mark LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Xiamen 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2015
2 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

Kingdomway Group Company, Pacific Rainbow International Inc. Also represented by XIANG LONG, LEI MEI. 

TIMOTHY PAAR WALKER, K&L Gates LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Shenzhou Biology and Technology Co., Ltd. Also represented by LEI 

HOWARD CHEN, HAROLD H. DAVIS, JR., JAS SINGH DHILLON 

 

GARY HNATH, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for 

amici curiae, Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd, ZMC-USA, LLC. 

Also represented by PAUL WHITFIELD HUGHES; TRENTON

MENNING, HENRY M. GRIFFIN IV, CHARLES STEPHEN 

KELLEY, Houston, TX. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Kaneka Corporation sued Defendants Xiamen Kingdomway Group Company, Pacific Rainbow International 

Inc., and Shenzhou Biology and Technology Co., Ltd., in 

the Central District of California, alleging infringement of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,910,340 (the ’340 Patent). The district 

court granted summary judgment of noninfringement

based on the district court’s claim construction. Kaneka 

appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm-in-part, 

vacate-in-part, and remand.

BACKGROUND

Coenzyme Q10 exists in animal cells. Cells use coenzyme Q10 to produce adenosine triphosphate, which aids 

cellular respiration. Coenzyme Q10 assists adenosine 

triphosphate production through redox reactions, in which 

the coenzyme gives up and gains electrons. Both oxidized 

and reduced coenzyme Q10 are sold as dietary supplements.

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2015
KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 3

Kaneka owns the ’340 Patent, which describes processes for producing oxidized and reduced coenzyme Q10. 

The claims at issue in this appeal describe processes for 

producing oxidized coenzyme Q10. Independent claim 1

recites: 

1. A process for producing on an industrial scale 

the oxidized coenzyme Q10 represented by the following formula: 

which comprises culturing reduced coenzyme Q10-

producing microorganisms in a culture medium 

containing a carbon source, a nitrogen source, a 

phosphorus source and a micronutrient to obtain 

microbial cells containing reduced coenzyme Q10

at a ratio of not less than 70 mole % among the 

entire coenzymes Q10, 

disrupting the microbial cells to obtain reduced 

coenzyme Q10; and 

oxidizing thus-obtained reduced coenzyme Q10 to 

oxidized coenzyme Q10 and then extracting the oxidized coenzyme Q10 by an organic solvent under 

an inert gas atmosphere. 

’340 Patent col. 23 l. 56–col. 24 l. 25; J.A. 80 (certificate of 

correction) (emphasis added to disputed language).

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2015
4 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

Claim 11 is identical to claim 1 except the extraction 

step is recited before the oxidation step. ’340 Patent col. 

24 l. 50–col. 25 l. 6 (“extracting the reduced coenzyme Q10

by an organic solvent under an inert gas atmosphere, and 

oxidizing the extracted reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized 

coenzyme Q10”).

Independent claims 22 and 33 are identical to claims 

1 and 11, respectively, except that the extraction step

recited in claims 22 and 33 is carried out in a “sealed 

tank.” Claim 22, like claim 1, recites the oxidation step 

before the extraction step. Id. col. 25 ll. 32–54 (“oxidizing

thus-obtained reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme 

Q10 and then extracting the oxidized coenzyme Q10 by an 

organic solvent in a sealed tank”) (emphasis added to 

disputed language). Claim 33 is identical to claim 22

except the extraction step is recited before the oxidation

step. Id. col. 26 ll. 13–36 (“extracting the reduced coenzyme Q10 by an organic solvent in a sealed tank, and 

oxidizing the extracted reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized 

coenzyme Q10”) (emphasis added to disputed language). 

On March 22, 2011, Kaneka filed suit in the Central 

District of California, asserting independent claims 1, 11, 

22, and 33, along with respective dependent claims. In 

June, Kaneka filed a Section 337 Petition in the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (“Commission”) involving the same claims. The district court stayed the lawsuit

pending resolution of the Commission proceeding. The 

Commission issued a decision finding no infringement by 

any of the respondents. 

Following the conclusion of the Commission proceeding, the district court lifted the stay and construed the 

asserted claims. The court construed the term “inert gas 

atmosphere” to mean “a gas atmosphere that is free or 

substantially free of oxygen and reactive gases.” J.A. 

3578. The “culturing” step was construed such that the 

mole ratio of reduced coenzyme Q10 relative to all the 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/10/2015
KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 5

coenzyme Q10 in the process would be measured at a 

certain point in the process according to a particular 

assay described in the ’340 Patent. J.A. 14051. The court 

construed the term “sealed tank” to mean “a tank that is 

closed to prevent the entry or exit of materials.” J.A. 

3579. The “oxidizing” step of claims 1 and 22 was construed to mean “actively converting all or substantially all 

of the reduced coenzyme Q10 obtained from the disruption 

step to oxidized coenzyme Q10 in a step before beginning 

the extraction step,” while the “oxidizing” step of claims 

11 and 33 was construed to mean “actively converting all 

or substantially all of the extracted reduced coenzyme Q10

obtained from the disruption step to oxidized coenzyme 

Q10 in a separate step after the extraction step has been 

performed.” J.A. 3585–86. 

Based on the district court’s claim construction, Defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to claims 1, 11, 22, 33, and associated 

dependent claims. The district court found an absence of 

a genuine issue of material fact that Defendants’ accused 

process does not infringe on the basis of the court’s construction of three claim terms: “inert gas atmosphere,” 

“sealed tank,” and the “oxidizing” step. Kaneka appealed

from the district court’s summary judgment, challenging 

the district court’s claim construction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

We first address whether Kaneka waived the right to 

challenge certain arguments regarding the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment. Shenzhou contends that 

although Kaneka argued claim construction in its opening 

brief, Kaneka failed to identify a genuine issue of material 

fact as to whether Appellees would infringe the asserted 

claims under Kaneka’s proposed construction.

We disagree. For the reasons that follow, the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/10/2015
6 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

rests on an erroneous claim construction. Hence, a genuine issue of material fact concerning infringement may

exist under the proper construction. See Wilson Sporting

Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1326 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he legal function of giving meaning to 

claim terms always takes place in the context of a specific 

accused infringing device or process.”). Summary judgment should ordinarily be vacated or reversed if the 

district court bases summary judgment on an erroneous 

claim construction. Innovad Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 260 

F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment according to the law of the regional circuit, here the 

Ninth Circuit, where summary judgment is reviewed de 

novo. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371, 

1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. 

Locke, 626 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010)). Accordingly, 

we reapply the standard applied by the district court. See 

Bos. Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 

1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing reasonable 

inferences in favor of the non-moving party, there is no 

genuine issue of material fact. Comite de Jornaleros de 

Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 

942 (9th Cir. 2011). We review claim construction de novo 

except for subsidiary facts that are based on the extrinsic

record, which we review for clear error. Teva Pharm. 

U.S.A. Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. 135 S. Ct. 831, 841–42 (2015); 

Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., No. 2013-

1528, 2015 WL 1865680, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2015).

I. “Inert Gas Atmosphere”

The district court construed the term “inert gas atmosphere” to mean “a gas atmosphere that is free or 

substantially free of oxygen and reactive gases.” J.A. 

3578. While Kaneka made claim construction arguments 

challenging the district court’s construction of this claim

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/10/2015
KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 7

term in its opening brief, Kaneka later withdrew its 

arguments in light of another unfavorable claim construction of this term in a related case pending in the Southern 

District of Texas. Letter of Appellant Kaneka at 2, 

Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway, Nos. 14-1373, -

1399 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2014), ECF No. 103. As a result, 

we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

of noninfringement of independent claims 1 and 11 and 

dependent claims 8-9 and 19-20. 

II. “Sealed Tank” 

In construing the term “sealed tank,” the district

court adopted “in its entirety” the reasoning of the Commission in the related proceeding that involved the same 

claim term. In that proceeding, the Commission consulted a dictionary definition that defined “seal” as “a tight 

and perfect closure (as against the passage of gas or 

water)” because the term “sealed” is not defined in the 

specification. J.A. 5347 (citing Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (2001)). An expert testifying 

before the Commission agreed with this meaning, explaining that the plain meaning of “sealed” is “airtight.” Id. 

On that basis, the district court construed the term 

“sealed tank” to mean “a tank that is closed to prevent the 

entry or exit of materials.” J.A. 3579. 

Kaneka argues that the district court’s construction 

conflicts with the intrinsic record because the specification suggests that the “sealed tank” is not closed to prevent entry and exit of all materials. Defendants respond 

that the district court’s construction is consistent with the 

only plain and ordinary meaning of the term “sealed,” 

that is not otherwise defined by the specification.

We agree with Kaneka that the district court’s construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic record. Claim 

construction begins with the language of the claims. 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (en banc); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/10/2015
8 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When interpreting 

claim language, courts consult the intrinsic record, which 

includes the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. The specification is “the single 

best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 

(citation omitted). Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary 

definitions, for example, may be useful when construing 

claim terms, “so long as the dictionary definition does not 

contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a 

reading of the patent documents.” Id. at 1322–23 (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added).

The district court’s reliance on the Commission’s dictionary definition and related testimony conflicts with the 

intrinsic record. Figure 1 and Example 8 suggest that the 

“sealed tank” should be sealed to the atmosphere, but not 

necessarily to other materials, such as solvents. See ’340 

Patent col. 23 ll. 17–44. In the industrial scale process of 

Example 8, a solution of disrupted (ruptured) cells containing reduced coenzyme Q10 is “sealed with nitrogen 

gas,” i.e., sealed under an inert gas atmosphere such that 

solution contents are not exposed to the atmosphere, and 

continuously extracted in a manner that allows solvent to 

flow into and out of the extraction tanks depicted in 

Figure 1. Though Example 8 refers to extracting reduced

coenzyme Q10, the specification describes how to similarly 

extract oxidized coenzyme Q10. See, e.g., id. col. 17 ll. 1–5. 

By depicting solvent flowing into and out of the extraction 

tanks, the specification indicates that the “sealed tank” is 

not sealed to prevent entry or exit of all materials.

In addition, the district court’s construction of “sealed 

tank” excludes Figure 1 and Example 8, which are the 

only examples of an industrial scale process, as the other 

examples describe lab-scale processes. A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if 

ever, correct.” MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & 

Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). A construction that excludes all disclosed embodiCase: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/10/2015
KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 9

ments, such as the district court’s construction of the term 

“sealed tank,” is especially disfavored. See id. 

Defendants argue that because the patentee did not 

define the term “sealed,” the term must have one plain 

and ordinary meaning that governs. We disagree. An 

adjective such as “sealed” may have more than one plain 

and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. 

Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a term may have more than 

one “ordinary” meaning). Although the specification does 

not specifically define the term “sealed,” the appropriate 

definition can be ascertained from the specification. See

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23.

Defendants argue that “sealed” must be construed according to the dictionary definition because the written 

description never uses the term “sealed”—the patentee 

added the term “sealed” to the claims during prosecution. 

Defendants also highlight that Figure 1 does not label the 

tanks as “sealed.” We disagree that “sealed” must be 

construed using a dictionary. As in the written description context, word-for-word alignment of disclosed embodiments (such as the extraction tanks depicted in Figure 1)

with claim language is unnecessary when the meaning of 

a claim term can be ascertained from the intrinsic record. 

See Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 

1996); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23. Accordingly, we 

hold that the term “sealed tank,” means “a tank that 

prevents exposure of the tank’s contents to the atmosphere.”

III. “Oxidizing” Step 

The district court construed “oxidizing” in claims 1 

and 22 to mean “actively converting all or substantially 

all of the reduced coenzyme Q10 obtained from the disruption step to oxidized coenzyme Q10 in a step before beginning the extraction step,” while “oxidizing” in claims 11 

and 33 was construed to mean “actively converting all or 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/10/2015
10 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

substantially all of the extracted reduced coenzyme Q10

obtained from the disruption step to oxidized coenzyme 

Q10 in a separate step after the extraction step has been 

performed.” J.A. 3585–86. The district court concluded 

that this construction has four limitations. First, oxidation “must be an active, not a passive, process.” J.A. 

14059. Second, “all or substantially all” of the reduced 

coenzyme Q10 must be converted during the oxidation

step. Id. Third, oxidation must occur either before the 

extraction step in claim 22 or after the extraction step in 

claim 33. Id. Fourth, oxidation must occur separately 

from the culturing, disruption, and extraction steps. Id.

Kaneka argues that the district erred for two reasons. 

First, the claims do not require active conversion of reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme Q10. Second, 

the claims do not require that “all or substantially all” of 

the reduced coenzyme Q10 be oxidized in a single step.

Defendants counter that the claim language requires 

that the recited steps be performed in order. Defendants 

contend that the order necessarily requires that “all or 

substantially all” of the coenzyme Q10 be oxidized during 

the oxidation step, and that no oxidation can occur during 

other steps. 

We agree that oxidation requires an active step. A 

process is defined as “an act, or a series of acts.” 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); In re Kollar, 

286 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] process . . . consists of a series of acts or steps . . . . It consists 

of doing something, and therefore has to be carried out or 

performed.”). Here, 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. Nor can the other recited claim steps, 

such as culturing or disrupting, suffice as the active step

resulting in oxidation. If those other steps qualify as the 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/10/2015
KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 11

oxidation step, the patentee’s inclusion of a separate

oxidation step would have no significance.

The oxidation step requires action, but it does not require the use of an oxidizing agent. Though the preferred 

embodiment uses an oxidizing agent, see, e.g., ’340 Patent

col. 17 l. 13., we must be cautious not to import preferred 

limitations into the claims. See Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Dependent claims 25, 26, 37, and 38 also recite an oxidizing agent, ’340 Patent col. 25 ll. 61–64; col. 26 ll. 44–47, 

but it would be improper to import a claim limitation from 

a dependent claim into an independent claim, see InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d 

1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Liebel–Flarsheim Co. 

v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The 

doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest . . . ‘where the limitation that is sought to be ‘read 

into’ an independent claim already appears in a dependent claim.’”)). Thus, an oxidizing agent is not required to 

carry out the “oxidizing” step.

We also agree that some oxidation must occur before 

the extraction step in claim 22 or after the extraction step 

in claim 33. Where the steps of a method claim actually 

recite an order, we ordinarily construe the claim to require order. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve 

Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A method 

claim can also be construed to require that steps be performed in order where the claim implicitly requires order, 

for example, if the language of a claimed step refers to the 

completed results of the prior step. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 

3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We 

hold that the oxidation step in claims 22 and 33 refers to 

the product of the previous step, and, therefore, at least 

some action resulting in oxidation must be applied to the 

product of the disruption step in claim 22, and the product 

of the extraction step in claim 33.

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 11 Filed: 06/10/2015
12 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

We disagree that the claimed order excludes passive 

oxidation during other process steps. See, e.g., ’340 Patent col. 16 ll. 16–34 (discussing passive oxidation). The 

claims’ preamble term “comprises” indicates that additional oxidation steps or results are not excluded. See, 

e.g., Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. ScheringPlough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Requiring active oxidation during the oxidation step

preserves the claimed order, but does not exclude passive 

oxidation during other steps. 

We also disagree with the district court’s conclusion 

and Defendants’ arguments on appeal suggesting that the 

claimed order requires that each step occur independently

or separately. In claim 22, some action resulting in 

oxidization must be applied to the product of the disruption step. See ’340 Patent col. 25 ll. 32–54 (“disrupting . . . to obtain reduced coenzyme Q10; and oxidizing

thus-obtained reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme 

Q10 . . . .”) (emphasis added). This does not necessarily 

mean that the disruption step has to be complete before 

the oxidation step begins. The claims do not exclude a 

continuous process, in which later steps are initiated as 

soon as at least some product from the previous step 

forms, while previous steps are still ongoing. The written 

description contemplates continuous process steps. See, 

e.g., ’340 Patent col. 8 l. 50 (continuous nutrient feed); col. 

16 ll. 7–8 (continuous extraction).1 The claims do not 

1 Kaneka admitted at oral argument that the extraction step recited in claim 22 occurs after the disrupting and oxidation steps. Oral argument at 11:55–12:07 

(available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argumentrecordings/all/kaneka.html) (“I think it’s pretty clear that 

when you use the term ‘and then’ the patent holder was 

saying that extraction here in claim 22 is coming after 

disruption and oxidizing.”). Kaneka’s admission implies 

 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 12 Filed: 06/10/2015
KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 13

exclude a process in which every claim step is occurring 

simultaneously. By the same logic, the extraction step 

recited in claim 33 does not have to be complete before the 

oxidation step begins as long as the oxidation step is 

applied to at least some extracted product. In other 

words, the claims require order but do not require discrete 

steps.

The district court concluded that “all or substantially 

all” of the reduced coenzyme Q10 must be oxidized during 

the oxidation step. We disagree. There is no mention in 

the specification of a yield requirement. Nor is yield 

relevant to the order of the claimed steps. 

To summarize, the oxidation step requires some action that results in oxidation but does not require oxidation of “all or substantially all” of the coenzyme Q10. 

Because the oxidation step indicates that oxidation is 

carried out on the product from the previous disruption

step in claim 22, some action resulting in oxidation must 

occur after some product from the disruption step forms 

and before the extraction step in claim 22 begins. Similarly, some action resulting in oxidation must occur after 

at least some reduced coenzyme Q10 has been extracted in 

claim 33. Because the claims read on a continuous process, a process step does not need to be complete before 

another step begins. Thus, it is not required that any one 

step be carried out separately or independently of any 

other step. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of independent claims 1 and 11 

and dependent claims 8-9 and 19-20. We vacate summary 

that some extraction must occur after some disruption 

and oxidation, but not necessarily that disruption and 

oxidation must be complete before extraction begins.

 

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 13 Filed: 06/10/2015
14 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY

judgment of noninfringement of independent claims 22 

and 33 and associated dependent claims, and remand to 

the district court for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and 

REMANDED 

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-1399 Document: 25-2 Page: 14 Filed: 06/10/2015