Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01539/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01539-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.

______________________ 

2014-1539

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:09-cv-01315-

KAW, Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

______________________ 

Decided: January 26, 2015

______________________ 

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA, of Colton, California, pro se. 

BRUCE H. LITTLE, Lindquist & Vennum LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for defendant-appellee. With him on 

the brief was CHRISTOPHER R. SULLIVAN. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/26/2015
2 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

WALLACH, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Aleksandr L. Yufa appeals the 

decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“district court”) granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee TSI Incorporated 

(“TSI”) on Dr. Yufa’s claim that TSI infringed U.S. Patent 

No. 6,346,983 (“the ’983 patent”). See Aleksandr L. Yufa 

v. TSI Inc., CV 09-01315-KAW (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2014) 

J.A. 2–11 (“Order”). Because the district court properly 

granted TSI’s motion for summary judgment, this court 

affirms.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The ’983 Patent

The ’983 patent is directed to the methods and devices 

for determining air, gas and liquid quality by measuring 

the quantity and size of airborne particles by utilizing a 

light beam. Established methods of measuring particles 

include measuring the light scattered by single particles 

as they pass through a focused light or laser detecting 

system. 

A light beam is directed at a particular point and individual particles are pulled through the beam. When 

particles pass through light, it causes the light to scatter. 

Light detected is output in the form of an analog voltage 

(amplitude) signal corresponding to the intensity of the 

light scatter off the particle. Digital signals are generated 

by comparing the analog voltage to a “reference voltage.” 

A reference voltage is a predetermined voltage which 

serves as a point of comparison to amplified detected 

signals. “The amplified detected signals are compared 

with the predetermined reference voltages [in order to 

determine] particle size.” ’983 patent col. 2 ll. 26–28. 

Instead of a reference voltage, the ’983 patent introduces 

an apparatus that measures particle size by the duration 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/26/2015
YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED 3

of digital form pulse. Independent claim 6 is illustrative 

and recites:

An apparatus for counting and measuring particles, providing a processing of an output of a light 

detecting means, said apparatus comprises: 

a current-voltage conversion means, providing 

conversion of said output of said light detecting 

means to voltage value signals, and wherein said 

output is effectively indicative of a size of said 

particles; 

an amplifying means, providing an amplification 

of said voltage value signals; 

an analog-digital form pulse duration conversion 

means, providing conversion of each of said voltage value signals to digital form pulses, and 

wherein each of said digital form pulses has a duration, which is adequate to the duration of an 

appropriate output of said light detecting means;

a strobe pulse generating means, providing generating of strobe pulses;

a conjunction means, forming strobe pulse packages by conjunction of each said digital form pulse 

and said strobe pulses; 

a selecting, sorting and counting means, providing 

the selection and sorting of said strobe pulse packages by an identical quantity of said strobe pulses 

within each of said strobe pulse packages. 

’983 patent col. 14 ll. 16–41 (emphases added to disputed 

claim language). 

B. Reexamination 

On March 25, 2009, Dr. Yufa filed a complaint alleging that TSI’s predecessor-in-interest, Adams Instruments (“Adams”) infringed the ’983 patent via sale of 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/26/2015
4 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

wireless communications products believed to be using 

technology covered by the ’983 patent.. The case was 

stayed pending an Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’983 

patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

(“PTO”). 

As originally issued, the patent included a total of 

eight claims. However, the PTO issued a certificate of 

reexamination (“Reexamination”) in which only claims 6–

8 of the ’983 patent survived. Although claims 6–8 were 

determined to be patentable, the PTO modified claim 6 to 

include additional limitations. The modification added 

the following limitation: “without using a reference voltage to convert each said voltage value signals.” Ex Parte 

Reexamination Certificate to U.S. Patent No. 6.346,983 

(Issued Aug. 14, 2012) (“Reexamination Certificate”) col. 2 

ll. 1–3. In light of this modification, the fourth paragraph 

of claim 6 now reads: 

an analog-digital form pulse duration conversion 

means, providing 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], wherein each said digital 

form pulse has a duration, which is adequate to a 

baseline duration of the appropriate output of said 

light detecting means; 

Reexamination Certificate col. 2 ll. 1–7 (emphasis added 

to disputed claim language and to reflect modification)

II. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS

TSI manufactures and sells products used to determine air quality through evaluation of the size of particles 

in the air. Dr. Yufa claimed TSI’s Non-Optical Devices, 

Pulse Height Detection Devices and Pulse Integration 

Devices (the “Accused Products”) all infringed the ’983 

patent. Appellant’s Br. 2, 7–8. 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/26/2015
YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED 5

The Accused Products can be grouped into three categories: (1) Non-Optical Devices count and measure particles by “utilizing diffusion charging of sample particles, 

followed by detection of the charged aerosol using an 

electrometer.”1 J.A. 279–80; (2) “Pulse Height Detection 

Devices detect the intensity or amount of light scattered 

off a particle to measure amplitude or ‘height’ of the 

voltage pulse, and, thereby, to infer particle size,”2 id; (3) 

Pulse Integration Devices “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.”3 Id. at 280.

On September 18, 2012, Dr. Yusef filed a First 

Amended Complaint asserting TSI’s product infringed the 

amended claims. On November 22, 2013, the district 

court held a claim construction hearing. The claim construction order was issued on February 24, 2014 and TSI 

filed a motion for summary judgment on December 12, 

2013. 

1 Non-Optical Devices include the AEROTRAK Nanoparticle Aerosol Monitor 9000.

2 Pulse Height Detection Devices include 

AEROTRAK Handheld Particle Counters 9303, 9306-01, 

9306-02, 9306-V and 8220; AEROTRAK Portable Particle 

Counters 9110, 9310-01, 9350-01, 9510-01, 9510-01, 8240 

and 8260; AEROTRAK Remote Particle Counters 7110, 

7201, 7301, 7301-P, 7310, 7501 and 7510; Optical Particle 

Sizer 3330; DustTrak).

3 Pulse Integration Devices include: AEROTRAK 

Handheld Particle Counters 9306-03, 9306-04 and 9306-

V2; AEROTRAK Portable Particle Counters 9310-2, 9350-

02, 9500-1, 9510-2, 9550-02 and 9350-3. 

 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/26/2015
6 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review

This court reviews a district court’s summary judgment decision under the law of the district court’s regional 

circuit. Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 

F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Applying the law of the 

Ninth Circuit, this court reviews the grant of summary 

judgment de novo. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 

1067 (9th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate 

when “the pleadings . . . show that there is no genuine 

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); HCA Health 

Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 

982, 991 (11th Cir. 2001).

Once the moving party demonstrates the absence of a 

genuine issue of material fact, “the non-moving party 

must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there 

is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) (emphasis included). 

“The first step of the infringement analysis is claim 

construction, a question of law reviewed de novo.” Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1343 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,

138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)). Claim 

terms are generally given their ordinary and customary 

meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have 

to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the 

time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 

1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A skilled artisan 

reads the term “in the context of the particular claim in 

which the disputed claim appears,” as well as “in the 

context of the entire patent, including the specification.” 

Id. at 1313. 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/26/2015
YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED 7

B. Dr. Yufa Did Not Present Evidence Showing the

Accused Products Infringe the ’983 Patent

To establish infringement, Dr. Yufa “must prove that 

the [Accused Products] embod[y] every limitation in the 

claim, either literally or by a substantial equivalent.” 

Conroy v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 

1994) (citation omitted). In granting TSI’s summary 

judgment request, the district court found none of TSI’s 

products met every limitation in claim 6 of the ’983 patent 

and that Dr. Yufa failed to present any evidence that 

would create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat 

TSI’s motion for summary judgment. 

i. Dr. Yufa Did Not Present Evidence Refuting 

TSI’s Claim that the Accused Products Use Reference Voltage to Convert Analog Signals to a 

Digital Form Pulse

As to TSI’s optical devices (Pulse Height Detection 

Devices and Pulse Integration Devices), TSI concedes that 

these devices “use a light detecting means to measure and 

count particle size.” Order at 5 (quoting Def.’s Mot. at 8–

9). In support of this assertion, TSI provided the declaration of Ricky Holm, an “Electrical Engineering Manager 

at TSI with over 20 years of professional experience in 

research, development and manufacturing of particle 

measuring equipment.” Order at 5. Holm testified that 

“[c]laim 6 of the ’983 Patent requires a system that converts a light detector’s amplified output into a digital 

signal without comparing the light detector’s amplified 

output to a predetermined reference voltage.” However, 

all of the TSI’s optical devices “use a reference voltage in 

connection with detecting particles.” J.A. 282. Therefore, 

TSI asserts its optical device products do not embody 

every limitation in claim 6. With respect to its NonOptical Device, Mr. Holm testified that TSI’s only accused 

device (AEROTRAK 9000) “does not use a light detecting 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/26/2015
8 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

means to count and measure particles.” Order at 5 (quoting Holm Decl. ¶ 14). 

The district court credited Mr. Holm’s declaration and 

held that in response, Dr. Yufa failed to “present any 

additional evidence beyond his conclusory contention that 

[the Accused Products] infringe” the ’983 patent. Order at 

9. Specifically, the court found Dr. Yufa could not show 

the Accused Products employed Pulse Width Modulation 

(“PWM”) to detect particles as opposed to a reference 

voltage as required by the ’983 patent. The district court 

also found Dr. Yufa’s “opposition consists almost entirely 

of conclusory allegations regarding TSI’s credibility, 

which does not create a genuine issue of material fact.” 

Order at 9. 

On appeal to this court, Dr. Yufa contends “[t]he District Court erred in granting summary judgment on the 

grounds of non-infringement to TSI.” Appellant’s Br. 37. 

Specifically, Dr. Yufa argues he “produced and identified 

at least the TSI’s [sic] interrogatory answer which states 

that TSI uses [PWM]” rather than a reference voltage. Id. 

at 2. Conversely, TSI contends Dr. Yufa “willfully misreads this statement as an admission.” Appellee’s Br. 16. 

Moreover, TSI claims it “amended [its] response to deny 

the use of [PWM] in any of its products.” Id. 

Dr. Yufa’s argument is related to TSI’s response to the 

third question in Dr. Yufa’s first set of interrogatories. In 

response to Dr. Yufa’s question concerning whether the 

Accused Products use PWM, TSI stated: 

TSI objects to the term Pulse Width Modulation

as overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding such objections and without waiving any 

objections, Defendant TSI incorporates by reference its Answer and denies infringement of the 

’983 Patent. To the extent that Defendant TSI uses [PWM] in any of its products, it does so in a 

manner that does not infringe the ’983 patent. 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/26/2015
YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED 9

J.A. 214–15 (emphasis added).

Dr. Yufa argues the above response is an admission 

by TSI that its products use PWM. This court finds the 

response by TSI 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. 

Dr. Yufa next argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment to TSI on the ground that the 

Accused Products use a reference voltage to convert the 

analog signal to a digital form pulse. Dr. Yufa contends 

the court erred in granting the judgment because “TSI 

asserts that [its] Optical Devices use a reference voltage 

only for indication of a pulse presence, but not for conversion.” Appellant’s Br. 56–57. Here, Dr. Yufa claims that 

TSI, via Mr. Holm’s declaration, establishes inconsistencies regarding whether its optical devices use a PWM. Id. 

at 57. Specifically, Dr. Yufa cites the district court’s order

stating: “[TSI] has provided evidence that each of the 

particle counters used in connection with the [Accused 

Products] uses a reference voltage to convert analog 

particle signals into digital form pulses, and, therefore, do 

not embody a limitation of the ’983 Patent.” Order at 8. 

Dr. Yufa compares the aforementioned statement to one 

where the district court states: 

TSI asserts that all of its remaining accused Pulse 

Integration Devices use pulse area to size particles instead of pulse amplitude. These products 

use a “reference threshold” to prevent false indications of a particle, and, therefore, only “indicate 

the presence of a pulse if the voltage signal exceeds the reference threshold value.” 

Order at 7 (quoting Holm Decl. at 19) (citations omitted)

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/26/2015
10 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

Dr. Yufa contends the two above statements are contradictory and therefore create a “genuine issue of material fact in regards to whether the accused products 

operate without the use of a reference voltage.” Appellant’s Br. 58. 

To the extent Dr. Yufa contends the second quotation 

supports the fact that a reference voltage is used only to 

indicate the presence of a pulse as opposed to being used 

to convert analog particle signals into digital form pulses, 

this court does not agree. The fact the second assertion by 

Mr. Holm, unlike the first, does not expressly state the 

particle counters in the Accused Products use a reference 

voltage to convert analog particle signals into digital form 

pulses is not indicative of the fact that it does not. TSI, 

via the declaration of Mr. Holm, has consistently claimed 

its optical devices use a reference voltage in converting 

analog particle signals into digital form pulses and Dr. 

Yufa has not presented any evidence to the contrary. 

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment 

after the moving party has presented evidence that the 

Accused Products do not meet the claim limitations of the 

’983 patent, the non-moving party must go beyond the 

pleadings and identify specific facts “showing that there is 

a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. 

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) 

Here, Dr. Yufa urges this court to find the optical devices do not use such a method merely because TSI failed 

to reference such use in a particular instance. Because 

this court does not find the two assertions by Mr. Holm 

referenced in the district court’s order to be contradictory, 

they do not create a genuine issue of material fact to 

defeat TSI’s motion for summary judgment. 

ii. The Schematic Diagram Timer Presented by Dr. 

Yufa Cannot Be Addressed Because He Failed to 

Present it to the District Court

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/26/2015
YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED 11

Dr. Yufa again argues that the Accused Products do 

not use a reference voltage by submitting TSI’s Schematic 

Diagram-Timer, Model 3800 ATOFMS (“Schematic Diagram”). Dr. Yufa argues that TSI’s PWM, as illustrated 

in the Schematic Diagram “provide the conversion of the 

voltage value (analog) signals to a digital form pulses 

without the use of reference voltage.” Appellant’s Br. 57. 

TSI counters Dr. Yufa did not present this argument to 

the district court, nor did he present the schematic diagram as part of his evidence in his opposition to TSI’s 

motion for summary judgment. Appellee’s Br. 14. 

The Schematic Diagram represents a new and entirely different ground in support of Dr. Yufa’s contention 

that TSI’s products use PWM rather than a reference 

voltage to convert analog particle signals into digital form 

pulses. However, “it is the general rule . . . that a federal 

appellate court does not consider an issue not passed 

upon below.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976). 

“[This court’s] precedent counsels against entertaining 

arguments not presented to the district court.” Golden 

Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d. 1318, 1322 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, “this court does not ‘review’ that 

which was not presented to the district court.” Sage 

Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 

(Fed. Cir. 1997).

However, in Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335 (2002) 

this court articulated a set of circumstances in which 

hearing arguments for the first time is appropriate: (1) 

“[w]hen new legislation is passed while an appeal is 

pending, courts have an obligation to apply the new law if 

Congress intended retroactive application even though 

the issue was not decided or raised below,” id. at 1355; (2) 

“when there is a change in the jurisprudence of the reviewing court or the Supreme Court after consideration of 

the case by the lower court,” id. at 1356; (3) “appellate 

courts may apply the correct law even if the parties did 

not argue it below and the court below did not decide it, 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/26/2015
12 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

but only if an issue is properly before the court,” id.; (4) 

“where a party appeared pro se before the lower court, a 

court of appeals may appropriately be less stringent in 

requiring that the issue have been raised explicitly below,” id. at 1357.

Dr. Yufa did not present the Schematic Diagram before the district court. However, this court finds that Dr. 

Yufa fits the fourth category in Forshey because he was a 

pro se party appearing before the district court. Although 

Forshey permits this court to be less stringent in requiring the issue to be expressly presented to the district 

court, this court finds that even under a less stringent 

approach, Dr. Yufa cannot now raise this argument. 

Here, Dr. Yufa concedes TSI presented him the Schematic Diagram during his inspection of TSI’s products in 

July 2013. However, TSI did not file its motion for summary judgment to the district court until December 12 

2013. Moreover, Dr. Yufa filed his opposition on December 23, 2013. Id. Thus, Dr. Yufa had the requisite time 

and opportunity to present this argument to the district 

court. Additionally, Dr. Yufa has not presented any 

extenuating or limiting circumstance that impeded his 

ability to present this diagram to the district court. 

Therefore, by not presenting this argument before the 

district court, Dr. Yufa has waived this argument. 

iii. Exhibits H and I Do Not Support the Claim that 

TSI’s Accused Products Use PWM

Finally, Dr. Yufa argues that “Exhibits H and I in 

[his] First Amended Complaint . . . disclose [] TSI’s use of 

the pulse duration (width) in [] TSI’s products for particle 

size determination.” Appellant’s Br. 23. Exhibit H is 

titled “Introduction To Interfaces Used In Facility Monitoring Systems.” Id. at 23–24. As stated by the district 

court, “Exhibit H is a document of unknown authorship . . 

. which contains an overview of many different components, including [PWM], and broadly cites to internet 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/26/2015
YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED 13

sources.” Order at 8. Exhibit I is a TSI document titled 

“Facility Monitoring Systems Design Recommendations” 

detailing “larger system networking, including the use of 

a local network and IP addresses.” Id. 

As the district court found, these documents are not 

sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 

8. For example, Exhibit H does not specifically identify 

TSI or its products and it is devoid of any evidence suggesting the Accused Products employ PWM as opposed to 

a reference voltage. 

With respect to Exhibit I, Dr. Yufa asserts “TSI’s [Facility Monitoring Systems] describes the [PWM] and 

provide[s] in those Pulse Width Modulators ‘. . . encod[ing] 

an analogue value as a digital pulse where the on time is 

proportional to the value.’” Appellant’s Br. 24 (quoting 

A122 ¶ 1). Although Exhibit I references remote particle 

counters, it does not refer to PWM or provide any support 

for Dr. Yufa’s contention that the Accused Products detect 

particles without a reference voltage. Rather, it merely 

represents conclusory allegations not grounded in actual 

facts to support Dr. Yufa’s claim. 

Dr. Yufa has not presented sufficient evidence to support the claim that the Accused Products use PWM as 

opposed to a reference voltage. Because Exhibits H and I 

do not constitute sufficient evidence to show the Accused 

Products infringe the ’983 patent, this court finds the 

Exhibits are insufficient to create a genuine issue of 

material fact to defeat TSI’s motion for summary judgment. See Matsushita Electric 475 U.S. at 586–87 n.11

(1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)) (“When a motion for 

summary judgment is made . . . an adverse party . . . must 

set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine 

issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment . . . shall be entered against him.”). 

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/26/2015
14 YUFA v. TSI, INCORPORATED

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this court affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment to TSI. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

On August 14, 2014, the district court granted in part 

and denied in part “[TSI’s] motion for attorneys’ fees and 

non-taxable costs, and award[ed] TSI attorneys’ fees in 

the amount of $154,702.75 and non-taxable costs in the 

amount of $4,343.05 for work performed between September 9, 2013, and March 7, 2014.” J.A. 433. The district court subsequently amended its summary judgment 

order to reflect the imposition of attorneys’ fees and costs 

on Dr. Yufa (“The Judgment dated May 22, 2014 (DKT# 

177) is hereby amended.”). J.A. 395 (emphasis added). 

Here, Dr. Yufa’s opening brief did not raise any issue 

regarding the district court’s allocation of attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Dr. Yufa contends “the District Court on 

September 3, 2014 entered a separate Judgment (Doc. 

205) awarding TSI with the attorneys’ fees and costs, but 

not an amended judgment ‘to include’ the attorneys’ fees 

and costs in the non-infringement Judgment.” Reply at 

12. This assertion is incorrect. As explained above, the 

district court “amended” its Order granting TSI’s summary judgment motion in order to reflect the imposition of 

costs on Dr. Yufa. Therefore, even if Dr. Yufa timely 

presented this argument before this court, it would have 

been denied. However, this court’s “law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are 

waived”. See SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 769 F.3d 

1073, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting SmithKline Beecham 

Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319) (Fed. Cir. 

2006). Therefore, because Dr. Yufa did not raise this 

issue in his opening brief, Dr. Yufa has waived this argument.

Case: 14-1539 Document: 23-2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/26/2015