Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01063/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01063-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TSI, Incorporated
Appellee
Aleksandr L. Yufa
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TSI, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1063, 2015-2007, 2016-1134

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 8:12-cv-01614-FMOJCG, Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

______________________ 

Decided: June 14, 2016

______________________ 

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

COURTLAND COLLINSON MERRILL, Anthony Ostlund 

Baer & Louwagie P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for defendantappellee. Also represented by DANIEL RYAN HALL; BRUCE 

HOWARD LITTLE, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Minneapolis, MN.

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

2 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

WALLACH, Circuit Judge.

In three separate appeals, Appellant Dr. Aleksandr L. 

Yufa challenges various decisions of the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California.1 For 

reasons discussed below, we solely address issues raised 

in Appeal No. 2015-1063. In that appeal, Dr. Yufa challenges the district court’s summary judgment decision 

that Appellee TSI, Incorporated (“TSI”) did not infringe

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,767,967 (“the ’967 patent”), 5,946,091 

(“the ’091 patent”), 6,034,769 (“the ’769 patent”), and 

7,439,855 (“the ’855 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-insuit”). See Yufa v. TSI, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-01614-FMO-JCG 

(C.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2014) (J.A. 2–28). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The patents-in-suit relate to methods and devices for 

counting and measuring particles in gases and fluids. Dr. 

Yufa raises arguments in his opening brief pertaining

only to the district court’s grant of summary judgment of 

non-infringement for the ’769 and ’855 patents. Thus, 

only the ’769 and ’855 patents are at issue in this appeal. 

The ’769 patent claims a method and a device for counting 

and measuring particles without using a reference voltage 

to determine the size of the detected particles. The ’855 

patent is directed to a method and an apparatus for 

remotely controlling an environmental monitoring system. 

 

1 In September 2015, this court consolidated Appeal 

Nos. 2015-1063 and 2015-1007. See Yufa v. TSI, Inc., No. 

2015-1063, Docket No. 40 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2015). 

In November 2015, this court further consolidated Appeal 

Nos. 2015-1063, 2015-1007, and 2016-1134. See Yufa v. 

TSI, Inc., No. 2015-1063, Docket No. 51 at 1 (Fed. Cir. 

Nov. 11, 2015). 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 3

I. The ’769 Patent

The ’769 patent is entitled “Method and Device for 

Counting and Measuring Particles” and discloses “devices 

and instruments for particle quantity counting and particle size measuring by light or laser beam.” ’769 patent 

col. 1 ll. 6–7. 

The prior art’s method of counting and measuring 

particles utilized “light scattering focalizing methods,” 

which are based “on the collection of the scattered light.” 

Id. col. 2 ll. 5–6. Particles are introduced into a laser 

beam at a first focal point, which is then “collect[ed] and 

focalize[d] at the second focal point [] [via mirrors or 

optics], where a light detector is placed and intended for 

scattered light detection.” Id. col. 2 ll. 10–13. “The amplified detected signal is compared with the predetermined 

reference voltage for the particle size qualifying.” Id. col. 

3 ll. 12–14. However, using this method “creates [] background (light noises) inside such devices, creating . . . incorrectness of the resulting information about 

the measured environment.” Id. col. 2 l. 66–col. 3 l. 1. 

The ’769 patent discloses “[a]n improved method of 

counting and measuring particle[] forms [through a] 

direct detection process, eliminating the light scattering 

detection principles.” Id. col. 4 ll. 19–21. “A light or laser 

beam intersects a particle flow inside a light detecting 

system in the light detection means area.” Id. col. 4 ll. 

25–26. “The signals, detected by light detection means 

through an analog-digital subsystem[,] follow to a processing system for signal processing and information 

displaying.” Id. col. 4 ll. 27–30. “When the particles of 

the particle flow intersect the light beam, the intensity of 

the light beam on the light detection means [] will be less 

than at the time when the particles are missing, because 

the presence of a particle in the light beam is an obstruction for the light in the direction to the light detection 

means [].” Id. col. 5 ll. 20–25. “The bigger the particle, 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

4 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

the less light intensity on the light detection means [].” 

Id. col. 5 ll. 25–26. 

Independent claim 1 is illustrative and recites, in relevant part:

A method for counting and measuring particles illuminated by a light beam and including the steps 

of:

providing by a light detecting system an output 

which is effectively indicative of a size of said particles intersecting said light beam within a particle monitoring region of said light detecting 

system so that said particles are monitored within 

said particle monitoring region, and wherein a 

light, created by [the] an intersection of said particles with said light beam, is proportional to said 

output:

amplifying said output by an amplifying means;

converting each amplified signal to a digital form 

pulse [having an adequate duration with said 

output] without using a reference voltage to convert each said amplified signal, wherein said digital form pulse has a duration which is adequate to 

a baseline duration of said output of said light detecting system. 

Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate to U.S. Patent No. 

6,034,769 (Issued Feb. 23, 2010) (“First Reexamination 

Certificate”) col. 1 l. 61–col. 2 l. 10 (brackets designate 

text removed from the patent and italics designate text 

added to the patent).2 Claims 1, 4, and 6 all require 

 

2 The ’769 patent underwent three ex parte reexaminations. During the first reexamination, claims 2 and 3 

were canceled; claims 1, 4, and 6 were determined to be 

patentable as amended; and claim 5, which depends from 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 5

conversion of the amplified signal “without using a reference voltage.” See id. col. 2 ll. 6–7 (claim 1); id. col. 2 ll. 

52–58 (claim 4); id. col. 4 ll. 1–8 (claim 6). 

II. The ’855 Patent

The ’855 patent is entitled “Method and Wireless 

Communicating Apparatus for Analysis of Environment” 

and discloses a method and a “wireless communicating 

apparatus for analysis of [the] environment including a 

wireless communication system/means, intended for 

wireless communication . . . and wireless control of at 

least one of a plurality of environment monitoring systems . . . .” ’855 patent col. 4 ll. 59–66. The wireless 

“control signal can provide, for example, [the] possibility 

to switch ‘on/off’, to switch ‘run/stop’, to select and change 

the particle counting and measuring channels, to provide

remote sensor diagnostics, to switch the mode [] from 

particle counting and measuring to concentration determination . . . , etc.” Id. col. 2 l. 67–col. 3 l. 7. Wireless 

communication with and control of the environmental 

monitoring systems allows users “to eliminate the presence of the operator in the clean rooms,” id. col. 3 ll. 52–

53, as well as eliminate the use of “long wire (long cable) 

connections,” which “can create interference [via electromagnetic noise] . . . thereby limiting the sensitivity and 

efficiency of the environmental analyzers,” id. col. 1 ll. 58–

63. 

 

amended claim 4, was determined to be patentable. See 

First Reexamination Certificate col. 1 ll. 52–59. The 

second and third reexaminations confirmed the patentability of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6. See Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate to U.S. Patent No. 6,034,769 (Issued Apr. 

5, 2011) col. 2 ll. 4–5; Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 

to U.S. Patent No. 6,034,769 (Issued June 19, 2012) col. 2 

ll. 4–5.

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

6 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

Independent claim 1 is illustrative and recites, in relevant part:

A method for analysis of an environment monitored by a ray or a light beam, said method, 

providing a wireless communication, comprises 

the steps of: 

forming in a mobile control system at least one of 

a plurality of control signals, which provide at 

least one of a turning-on, turning-off, and/or 

switching of modes of operation of an environment 

monitoring system;

converting in said mobile control system said at 

least one of said plurality of control signals to the 

form for a wireless transmission;

wireless transmitting said at least one of said plurality of control signals to said environment monitoring system.

Id. col. 17 ll. 23–34. All of the independent claims require 

the “wireless transmitting” of “control signals” to an 

“environment monitoring system.” See id. col. 17 ll. 33–34

(claim 1); id. col. 18 ll. 44–45 (claim 5); id. col. 19 ll. 27–29

(claim 8). Additionally, the independent claims all disclose substantially the same claim limitations. Compare 

id. col. 17 l. 23–col. 18 l. 14 (claim 1), with id. col. 18 l. 34–

col. 19 l. 5 (claim 5), and id. col. 19 l. 20–col. 20 l. 35 

(claim 8). 

III. TSI’S Accused Products 

“TSI manufactures and sells products used to determine air quality by evaluating the size of particles in the 

air.” J.A. 280 (citation omitted). Dr. Yufa alleges that 

TSI’s Non-Optical Devices, Pulse Height Detection Devices, Pulse Integration Devices, and other products (collectively, the “Accused Products”) infringe the patents-insuit. J.A. 39–58 (Dr. Yufa’s Complaint).

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 7

The Accused Products can be grouped into four categories: (1) Non-Optical Devices “that count[] and measure[] particles by utilizing diffusing charging of sample 

particles, followed by detection of the charged aerosol 

using an electrometer,”3 J.A. 310 ¶ 14 (declaration of 

TSI’s engineering manager, Ricky Holm); (2) Pulse Height 

Detection Devices that “detect the intensity or amount of 

light scattered off a particle to measure amplitude or 

‘height’ of the voltage pulse . . . to infer particle size,”4 J.A. 

311 ¶ 14; (3) Pulse Integration Devices that “measure 

particle size by integrating the output signal from the 

photodetector over a period of time to calculate a pulse 

‘area’ instead of pulse amplitude,”5 J.A. 312 ¶ 14; and (4) 

other products.6 

IV. Proceedings

 

3 Non-Optical Devices include the AEROTRAK Nanoparticle Aerosol Monitor—i.e., the AEROTRAK 9000. 

J.A. 310 ¶ 14. 

4 Pulse Height Detection Devices include: 

AEROTRAK Handheld Particle Counters 9303, 9306-01, 

9306-02, 9306-V; AEROTRAK Portable Particle Counters 

3306, 9110, 9310-01, 9350-01, 9510-01; AEROTRAK 

Remote Particle Counters 7110, 7201, 7301, 7301-P, 7310, 

7501, 7510; Optical Particle Sizer 3330; and DustTrak. 

J.A. 311 ¶ 14. 

5 Pulse Integration Devices include: AEROTRAK 

Handheld Particle Counters 9306-03, 9306-04, 9306-V2; 

AEROTRAK Portable Particle Counters 9310-2, 9350-02, 

9500-1, 9510-2, 9550-02, 9350-3; and BIOTRAK RealTime Viable Particle Counter 9510-BD. J.A. 312 ¶ 14. 

6 Other products include: TSI’s Facilities Management System (“FMS”) software; Model 3800 Aerosol Mass 

Spectrometers, Particle Size Selector 376060, Models 

3321 and M32-01. J.A. 285 (citations omitted). 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

8 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

In September 2012, Dr. Yufa filed suit against TSI, alleging infringement of certain claims of the patents-insuit. In August 2013, TSI filed a joint claim construction 

statement, which was adopted by the district court. The 

remaining disputed terms were construed by the district 

court in a September 2014 Order. In the same Order, the 

district court granted TSI’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding the Accused Products do not infringe the 

asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. 

Dr. Yufa timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012).

DISCUSSION

In his opening brief, Dr. Yufa concedes that he “does 

not raise . . . the issue(s) related to [Appeal Nos.] 2015-

2007 and 2016-1134.” Appellant’s Br. 1–2. The issues in 

those appeals concern the district court’s decisions to 

award attorney fees and costs to TSI, J.A. 1721–30, and 

deny Dr. Yufa’s Motion for Relief under Rule 60(b)(3) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, J.A. 1769–70. In 

any case, Dr. Yufa has not preserved any argument 

related to these issues because he did not raise them in 

his opening brief. See Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer 

Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“An issue that 

falls within the scope of the judgment appealed from but 

is not raised by the appellant in its opening brief on 

appeal is necessarily waived.”). 

Thus, we are left to address only the issues raised in 

Appeal No. 2015-1063. In Appeal No. 2015-1063, Dr. 

Yufa argues the district court erred in granting TSI’s 

motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 9

’769 and ’855 patents.7 We address these arguments 

below.

I. Standard of Review and Legal Framework for Summary 

Judgment of Non-Infringement

This court reviews summary judgment decisions under the law of the regional circuit. MicroStrategy Inc. v. 

Bus. Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Applying the law of the Ninth Circuit, this court reviews 

the grant of summary judgment de novo. Coons v. Sec’y of 

U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Summary judgment is appropriate “if 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). 

“A material issue of fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the 

 

7 In Appeal No. 2015-1063, Dr. Yufa also contends 

that the district court erred in granting the motion for 

summary judgment of non-infringement as to the ’967 and 

’091 patents. Appellant’s Br. 20–21. These contentions 

are not discussed in the argument portion of Dr. Yufa’s 

opening brief and are waived. See In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 

678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a party 

waives an argument that it raises in the background 

section of its brief, but not in the argument section). Even 

if this court were to exercise its discretion and consider 

arguments that were not properly raised in the opening 

brief, see SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 

F.3d 1312, 1320 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2006), we would still find 

waiver for failure to present a developed argument, see id. 

at 1320 (“When a party includes no developed argumentation on a point . . . we treat the argument as waived under 

our well established rule.” (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted)). 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

10 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

parties’ differing versions of the truth.” SEC v. Seaboard 

Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). “When determining whether a genuine issue of 

material fact remains for trial, we must view the evidence 

and all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to 

the non-moving party and may not weigh the evidence or 

make credibility determinations.” Hauk v. JP Morgan 

Chase Bank USA, 552 F.3d 1114, 1117–18 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citation omitted). However, “[t]he mere existence of a 

scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s]

position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on 

which the [fact finder] could reasonably find for the [nonmoving party].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 252 (1986). 

To prevail on its summary judgment motion, the moving party “must either produce evidence negating an 

essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or 

defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have 

enough evidence of an essential element to carry its 

ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & 

Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “If, however, a moving party 

carries its burden of production, the nonmoving party 

must produce evidence to support its claim or defense.” 

Id. at 1103 (citations omitted). “If the nonmoving party 

fails to produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue 

of material fact, the moving party wins the motion for 

summary judgment.” Id. (citation omitted). 

II. The District Court Properly Granted 

Summary Judgment

Dr. Yufa alleges that TSI’s Accused Products infringe 

the ’769 and ’855 patents. We review questions regarding 

patent infringement consistent with our precedent. See, 

e.g., Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 

F.3d 1263, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The determination of 

infringement requires a two-step analysis: (1) a proper 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 11

construction of the claim to determine its scope and 

meaning, and (2) a comparison of the properly construed 

claim to the accused device or process.” Conroy v. Reebok 

Int’l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation 

omitted). Claim construction is not an issue in this case. 

“With regard to the second step of the infringement 

analysis, the patentee must prove that the accused device 

embodies every limitation in the claim, either literally or 

by a substantial equivalent.” Id. (citation omitted). 

A. The ’769 Patent

The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement as to the ’769 patent. In doing so, the district court reviewed Dr. Yufa’s claims of infringement 

against TSI’s Non-Optical and Optical Devices,8 the 

claims of the ’769 patent, and the evidence offered by both 

TSI and Dr. Yufa. See generally J.A. 14–21. The district 

court applied the proper standards in granting summary 

judgment of non-infringement for TSI’s Accused Products. 

It concluded that there was insufficient proof to support a 

reasonable finding that any of the Accused Products met 

every limitation of the asserted claims of the ’769 patent. 

We agree with the district court that Dr. Yufa has failed 

to raise a triable issue with respect to the Accused Products. 

As to TSI’s Non-Optical Devices, the district court 

properly held that there was no evidence demonstrating 

 

8 Dr. Yufa alleged that “various AEROTRAK 

Handheld Particle Counters 930, AEROTRAK Nanoparticle Aerosol Monitor 9000, AEROTRAK Portable Particle 

Counters, AEROTRAK Remote Particle Counters, 

BIOTRAK Real-Time Viable Particle Counter 9510-BD, 

Optical Particle Sizer 3330, DustTrak, Nanoparticle Sizer 

3910, and [FMS] infringe the ’769 patent.” J.A. 16 (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citations omitted). 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 11 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

12 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

that these products use optical, light beam technology as 

claimed in the ’769 patent. The district court relied on 

Mr. Holm’s declaration, which explained that “TSI’s NonOptical [Devices] do not actually use the optical, lightbeam technology involved” in the ’769 patent. J.A. 17

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The 

district court further concluded that TSI’s Non-Optical 

Devices did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, 

observing that Dr. Yufa did “not put forth any evidence to 

demonstrate that there is an ‘insubstantial’ difference

between illuminating particles using light and the method 

employed by the accused [N]on-[O]ptical [Devices].” J.A.

18. 

As to TSI’s Optical Devices, the district court properly 

held that there was no evidence that demonstrates these 

products convert amplified signals to digital signals 

without using a reference voltage, as claimed in the ’769 

patent. The district court found that Dr. Yufa failed “to 

raise a genuine issue of material fact that the use of pulse 

width modulation necessarily satisfies the ‘reference 

voltage’ claim limitation.” J.A. 20 (footnote omitted). The 

district court reviewed the exhibits relied upon by Dr. 

Yufa to establish a dispute of material fact and found 

them unavailing. For example, the “Introduction To 

Interfaces Used in Facility Monitoring Systems” was “a 

general reference document that does not inform the 

operation of the accused [O]ptical [Devices]” and, further, 

it did “not even appear to be a TSI document.” J.A. 20

(citation omitted). Moreover, the “Facility Monitoring 

System Design Recommendations” was “a reference 

document providing ‘example[s]’ of potential ‘monitoring 

system’ designs” that “does not discuss the use of ‘pulse 

width modulation’ or conversion without a reference 

voltage.” J.A. 20 (citations omitted). The district court 

credited Mr. Holm’s declaration, which explained that 

“‘[n]one of TSI’s Optical Devices convert analog signals to 

digital without use of a reference voltage.’” J.A. 20 (quotCase: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 12 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 13

ing J.A. 316 ¶ 24). Finally, the district court correctly

determined that Dr. Yufa’s assertions that “the Series 

3800 or LT1016” infringe the ’769 patent were, inter alia, 

similarly unsupported. J.A. 21. 

Dr. Yufa argues the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment of non-infringement as to the ’769 

patent because his “opposing papers specifically . . . dispute and present evidence[] . . . [that] TSI’s 

Optical Device[s] (Pulse Integration Device[s]/particle 

counter[])[,e.g.,]–‘Model 3800 [Aerosol Time-of-Flight 

Mass Spectrometer (‘ATOFMS’)] . . . convert the analog 

signal to a digital form pulse without the use of the reference voltage in conversion.” Appellant’s Br. 29–30. Dr. 

Yufa also contends that TSI’s Accused Products “use 

Pulse Width Modulation/Modulators [components ‘U2’ 

and ‘U3’ – LT1016CS8 in TSI’s ‘Schematic DiagramTimer, Model 3800 ATOFMS’],” id. at 53 (brackets in 

original) (citations omitted), and that these pulse width 

modulators do not “use the reference voltage [in contrast 

to the pulse amplitude (height) method, which uses the 

reference voltage (e.g., in the TSI’s ‘Pulse Height Devices’)],” id. at 46–47 (brackets in original). To further 

support his assertion that TSI uses pulse width modulation, Dr. Yufa relies upon (1) the document entitled “Introduction To Interfaces Used in Facility Monitoring 

Systems,” which was rejected by the district court, and (2) 

TSI’s Answers to Dr. Yufa’s First Set of Interrogatories

from a related litigation. Id. at 30–31. 

Dr. Yufa’s arguments as to the Optical Devices, like 

many of his other arguments on appeal, fail to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of material fact for 

trial. Dr. Yufa is incorrect in his categorization of the 

evidence that he relies upon in his opening brief. The 

district court determined that the document entitled

“Introduction To Interfaces Used in Facility Monitoring 

Systems” was “a general reference document that does not 

inform the operation of the accused [O]ptical [Devices]” 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 13 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

14 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

and, further, it did “not even appear to be a TSI document.” J.A. 20 (citation omitted). Dr. Yufa has not provided any record evidence that would demonstrate TSI 

was the author of this document or that it relates to the 

Accused Products. Dr. Yufa merely offers contradictory 

assertions, which are insufficient to survive summary 

judgment. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 

F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The requirement that 

the nonmovant must set forth specific facts means that 

mere denials or conclusory statements are insufficient to 

survive summary judgment.” (internal quotation marks, 

brackets, and citation omitted)).

Additionally, Dr. Yufa relies on statements made by 

TSI in response to Dr. Yufa’s interrogatories from related 

litigation in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California involving U.S. Patent No. 

6,346,983 (“the ’983 patent”), a patent related to the 

patents-in-suit in the present case. See Yufa v. TSI, Inc., 

No. 09-CV-01315-KAW, 2014 WL 4071902 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

14, 2014). In the present appeal, Dr. Yufa asserts that 

“TSI confirmed under oath the use of Pulse Width Modulation.” Appellant’s Br. 45; see J.A. 270–71 (TSI’s Answers to Dr. Yufa’s First Set of Interrogatories, where TSI 

explained that “[t]o the extent that [] TSI uses pulse 

width modulation in any of its products, it does so in a 

manner that does not infringe the ’983 [p]atent.”). In 

resolving the appeal of this related litigation, we rejected 

Dr. Yufa’s argument that TSI’s response reflects an 

admission of infringement, holding that the response

“does not constitute an admission. Rather, it is a hypothetical reply that merely serves to address TSI’s stance 

on whether its products infringe the ’983 patent. Thus, 

Dr. Yufa cannot employ TSI’s response to interrogatory 

No. 3 as illustrative of an admission.” Yufa v. TSI, Inc., 

600 F. App’x 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished). Dr. 

Yufa’s reliance on TSI’s response to the first set of interrogatories fails to account for this determination or exCase: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 14 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 15

plain how it applies differently to the patents-in-suit and, 

therefore, does not present specific facts sufficient to 

survive summary judgment. See Enzo Biochem, 599 F.3d 

at 1337. 

Finally, Dr. Yufa further contends that the district 

court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement as to TSI’s “Series 3800 and LT1016” products on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish a 

genuine issue of material fact “because . . . the [d]istrict 

[c]ourt cannot ‘assess’ . . . the technical issues . . . ([e.g.,] 

such as conversion without reference voltage . . . ) used in

[] TSI’s [A]ccused [P]roducts . . . .” Appellant’s Br. 53–54. 

However, Dr. Yufa is incorrect in his assertion. The 

district court determined Dr. Yufa’s “assertions regarding . . . the Series 3800 and LT1016[] are inadequately 

supported.” J.A. 21 (citing Yufa v. Lockheed Martin 

Corp., 575 F. App’x 881, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished)). The district court also faulted Dr. Yufa for 

failing to timely assert infringement contentions with 

respect to those products, observing that Dr. Yufa “refuse[d] to identify which of [TSI’s] products or systems 

infringe[d] each patent-in-suit. Instead, [Dr. Yufa] simply 

reference[d] his [C]omplaint.” J.A. 1063. In his opening 

brief, Dr. Yufa offers nothing more than mere assertions 

that series “‘3800 and LT1016’ are [] admissible [] evidentiary material facts.” Appellant’s Br. 55. His unsupported assertions are insufficient to defeat summary 

judgment. See Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 

888 (1990) (a party may not avoid a motion for summary 

judgment by resting on “conclusory allegations of the 

complaint” or by answering “with conclusory allegations 

of an affidavit.” (citation omitted)).

B. The ’855 Patent

The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement as to the ’855 patent. The summary judgment was based on the district court’s determination that 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 15 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

16 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

Dr. Yufa “failed [to] put forth evidence to dispute TSI’s 

evidence that the accused products only perform wireless 

monitoring in conjunction with the FMS.” J.A. 28. In 

reaching that conclusion, the district court reviewed Dr. 

Yufa’s claims of infringement against (1) the products 

accused of infringing the ’855 patent;9 (2) the claims of the 

’855 patent; and (3) the evidence offered by both TSI and 

Dr. Yufa. See generally J.A. 24–28. 

As to TSI’s products accused of infringing the ’855 patent, the district court properly held that there was no 

evidence that demonstrates that TSI’s sensors can be 

wirelessly controlled as claimed in the ’855 patent. The 

district court determined that “the evidence is undisputed 

that the sensors still require manual adjustment.” J.A. 27 

(footnote and citation omitted). In reaching this determination, the district court credited the declaration of TSI’s 

systems engineer, Sreenath Avula, which explained that 

“TSI’s [FMS] requires manually adjusting the controls at 

the sensor by, for example, setting the sample time, and 

then changing the same parameters in the [FMS] software accordingly. In other words, the user must manually control the sensors, they are never remotely or 

wirelessly controlled.” J.A. 26 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

The district court also rejected Dr. Yufa’s reliance on 

the document entitled “Facility Monitoring System Design 

Recommendation” as evidence demonstrating that TSI’s 

sensors are not subject to manual control. J.A. 26–27. 

The district court observed that Dr. Yufa did not “put 

forth sufficient evidence that the accused TSI products 

 

9 Products accused of infringing the ’855 patent include: “various AEROTRAK Remote Particle Counters, 

[FMS], and AEROTRAK Portable Particle Counters.” 

J.A. 25–26 (internal quotation marks, footnote, and 

citations omitted). 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 16 Filed: 06/14/2016
YUFA v. TSI, INC. 17

wirelessly transmit ‘control signals.’ Rather, the cited 

evidence indicates that the ‘sensors’ are connected by 

wired network to a ‘monitoring [Local Area Network].’” 

J.A. 27 (citation omitted). The district court also determined that Dr. Yufa’s “citation to general documents, 

such as a website description of the ‘AEROTRAK Remote 

Particle Counter 7301,’ is insufficient to raise a genuine 

issue of material fact that the accused products wirelessly 

transmit ‘control signals.’” J.A. 27–28 (citations omitted). 

Dr. Yufa argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement as to the ’855 

patent because “TSI’s own schematic diagrams” conflict 

with TSI’s statements that “the user must manually 

control the sensors, they are never remotely or wirelessly 

controlled.” Appellant’s Br. 56 (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). The schematics conflict, according 

to Dr. Yufa, because they show that “TSI’s [FMS] provide 

the wireless monitoring and control of the remote particle 

counters via TSI’s Wireless network connection.” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Dr. Yufa 

further contends that “the remote particle counters (sensor), according to [] TSI’s documents[,] do not have any 

organs for manual control at all . . . . The [FMS’s] component – ‘Power over Ethernet (POE) Managed Switch’ 

provides the claimed wireless control, i.e.: ‘turning-on’ and 

‘turning-off’ of the remote particle counters (sensors).” Id. 

at 57–58 (citing J.A. 245, 248, 250). 

As with his arguments to the ’769 patent, we find that 

Dr. Yufa’s arguments as to the ’855 patent fail to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact for 

trial. Dr. Yufa has not offered any additional evidence to 

demonstrate that TSI’s FMS provides for wireless control 

of the remote particle sensors and thus do not require 

manual adjustment. See Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 

1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The party opposing the 

[summary judgment] motion must point to an evidentiary 

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 17 Filed: 06/14/2016
 

18 YUFA v. TSI, INC. 

conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by 

a knowledgeable affiant. Mere denials or conclusory 

statements are insufficient.” (brackets in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Rather, Dr. 

Yufa appears to contest the credibility of Mr. Avula’s 

declaration that the sensors “are never remotely or wirelessly controlled.” J.A. 330 ¶ 9. Such conclusory assertions are not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary 

judgment. See TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1158–59 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Summary judgment should not be denied simply because the 

opposing party asserts that the movant[’]s witnesses are 

not to be believed. However, summary judgment is not 

appropriate where the opposing party offers specific facts 

that call into question the credibility of the movant[’]s 

witnesses.” (citations omitted)). 

CONCLUSION 

We have considered Dr. Yufa’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decisions of 

the United States District Court for the Central District 

of California are 

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 15-1063 Document: 95-2 Page: 18 Filed: 06/14/2016