NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, SAVANT 

TECHNOLOGIES LLC, HOME DEPOT PRODUCT 

AUTHORITY, LLC, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

HOME DEPOT, INC., IKEA SUPPLY AG, IKEA U.S. 

RETAIL LLC, IKEA OF SWEDEN AB, SATCO 

PRODUCTS, INC., GLOBAL VALUE LIGHTING, 

LLC, SIGNIFY NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, 

FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,

Intervenors

______________________ 

2022-1521

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1220.

______________________ 

Decided: May 16, 2023 

______________________ 

Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 1 Filed: 05/16/2023
2 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC

SHAWN G. HANSEN, Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by VINCENT

CACHO CAPATI, SETH D. LEVY; ANGELO CHRISTOPHER, Chicago, IL; EVAN LANGDON, Fabricant LLP, Washington, DC. 

ELAINE BLAIS, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, for 

intervenors General Electric Company, Savant Technologies LLC. Also represented by DOUGLAS J. KLINE, KEVIN P.

MARTIN, LANA S. SHIFERMAN; PATRICK MCCARTHY, Washington, DC. 

RYAN K. WALSH, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for intervenors Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, Home Depot 

U.S.A., Inc., Home Depot, Inc. Also represented by PARTH

MATALIA; RITA J. YOON, San Francisco, CA. 

MICHAEL J. BONELLA, Flaster Greenberg, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for intervenors IKEA Supply AG, IKEA U.S. Retail LLC, IKEA of Sweden AB. Also represented by 

CORALEINE KITT, JOSEPH KLINICKI, AAKASH PATEL. 

NICHOLAS A. BROWN, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for all intervenors. Intervenor Satco 

Products, Inc. Also represented by SCOTT JOSEPH

BORNSTEIN, BRIAN JOSEPH PREW, New York, NY; CYRUS

FRELINGHUYSEN, Washington, DC; ROBERT P. LYNN, JR., 

Lynn Gartner Dunne & Frigenti, LLP, Mineola, NY. 

JAY EMERICK, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for 

intervenor Global Value Lighting, LLC. Also represented 

by ERIC DAVID HAYES; ABIGAIL LAUER LITOW, Washington, 

DC. 

ADAM SWAIN, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC, for

intervenor Signify North America Corporation. Also represented by ROSS BARTON, KARLEE N. WROBLEWSKI, Charlotte, NC. 

Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2023
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 3

JAY REIZISS, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, for intervenor Feit Electric Company, Inc. Also 

represented by ALEXANDER OTT; SIMEON PAPACOSTAS,

KALPESH SHAH, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, 

Chicago, IL. 

HOUDA MORAD, Office of General Counsel, United 

States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by WAYNE W.

HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A. ROSENZWEIG. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

Regents of the University of California (Regents) appeals a decision by the International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determining that Feit Electric Company, 

Home Depot Product Authority, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

The Home Depot, Inc., IKEA Supply AG, Ikea of Sweden 

AB, General Electric Company, Savant Technologies LLC, 

Savant Systems, Inc., and Satco Products, Inc. (collectively, 

Respondents) did not violate 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing 

or selling certain filament light-emitting diodes (LEDs) 

and products containing the same (Accused Products). In 

the Matter of Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and 

Prods. Containing Same (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, 2022 

WL 766226 (Mar. 8, 2022) (Comm’n Opinion). The Commission determined that Respondents’ Accused Products 

did not infringe claim 1 of both U.S. Patent Nos. 10,593,854 

(’854 patent) and 10,658,557 (’557 patent), and that claim 

1 of both patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 

103. Id. at *5–6, *29–33, *35–44; see also In the Matter of

Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Prods. Containing Same (II), Final Initial Determination, Inv. No.

337-TA-1220, 2021 WL 6102808, at *74–98 (Nov. 19, 2021)

(Initial Determination). Regents appeals the Commission’s

Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 3 Filed: 05/16/2023
4 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC

determinations on claim construction, infringement, and 

invalidity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(6). Because we agree with the Commission’s construction of “molding” and determine that its findings of 

noninfringement based on the “molding” limitation are 

supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the Commission’s determination without reaching the alternative 

grounds for its decision. 

“We review the Commission’s final determinations under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act.” 

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 936 

F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We review the Commission’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal 

determinations de novo. Id. 

We agree with the Commission’s claim construction of 

“molding” as “a component formed by or as if by a mold.” 

J.A. 669. Regents argues that a “molding” does not necessarily require a structure with uniform shape and that it 

should be construed to mean a “formed component.” Appellant’s Br. 40–41. However, based upon the intrinsic evidence and the nature of this invention, we disagree. 

Nothing in the claims support Regents’s construction of the 

term “molding.” The specification likewise teaches a 

“molding” with more specific physical characteristics than 

simply a “formed component,” because the “molding” must 

be designed in a particular manner to effectively extract 

light from the LED.1 See, e.g., ’557 patent at claim 1, col. 

1 Regents also argues in its reply brief that the Commission’s claim construction improperly excludes certain 

embodiments of “moldings,” such as Figure 13 of the ’854 

and ’557 Patents. Appellant’s Reply Br. 6–7. Regents 

failed to raise this argument to the Administrative Law 

Judge or in its opening brief on appeal. See In re Google 

Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020); 

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 

Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 4 Filed: 05/16/2023
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 5

13 l. 65 – col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 l. 59 – col. 16 l. 12; ’854 patent

at claim 1, col. 14 ll. 10–26, col. 16 ll. 49–67. Moreover, 

Regents’s proposed construction of “formed component”

provides no clarity as to any physical characteristics required by the “molding,” as we see no distinction between 

a formed and unformed component. Thus, we agree with 

the Commission’s construction of “molding.” 

Turning to infringement, substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that the Respondents’ Accused Products lack a “molding.” Expert testimony showed 

that the accused moldings are filament coatings that have 

surface irregularities, which are unlike coatings formed by 

a mold or as if by a mold. Initial Determination, 2021 WL 

6102808, at *79; J.A. 3483 (Tr. at 1011:5–1022:23); J.A.

3544 (Tr. 1150:2–1151:5); J.A. 135292; J.A. 141137; 

J.A. 141189. Regents argues that the Commission erred by 

failing to focus solely on the portions of the filament immediately “surrounding the LED.” Appellant’s Br. 42–46. 

This argument is untimely, however, as it was not raised 

to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and only argued in 

the petition for Commission review. See Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules, at 28, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA1220 (Oct. 5, 2020) (“[a]ny contentions for which a party 

has the burden of proof that are not set forth in detail in 

the post-hearing initial brief shall be deemed abandoned or 

withdrawn”); Oral Arg. at 5:01–5:41. Regents cannot now 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Putting aside the untimeliness of 

this argument, we disagree with Regents’s reading of the 

specification; the disclosed “molding” is first molded or 

shaped to have a particularized consistent appearance, and 

then subsequently “roughened, textured, patterned or 

shaped to increase the light extraction.” ’854 patent col. 16 

ll. 49–67; ’557 patent col. 16 ll. 36–54.

Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 5 Filed: 05/16/2023
6 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC

claim surprise by the ALJ final initial determination’s 

analysis of the entire filament in the accused products because (1) the expert testimony from both sides at the hearing specifically focused on irregularities at the end of the 

filament, and (2) Regents itself argued in its post-hearing 

brief that the entire length of the filament was consistent

as if formed by a mold. J.A. 3484 (Tr. 1150:2–1151:5); J.A. 

3364–65 (Tr. 639:22–640:11); J.A. 11963 (Regents PostHr’g Br.). In sum, we reject Regents’s arguments attacking 

the Commission’s fact findings. 

Because we affirm the Commission’s claim construction and non-infringement determination as to the “molding” limitation, we need not address Regents’s other 

arguments. See Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 524 F.3d 1310, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]e are 

not required to address every possible ground on which the 

Commission’s order might be sustained.”). 

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 6 Filed: 05/16/2023