N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
REGE NTS 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 CORPOR ATION, FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Intervenors

______________________
2022

- 152 1

______________________ App eal 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: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 2

S HAWN G. H ANSEN , Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by V INCENT C ACHO C APATI , S ETH D. L EVY ; A NGELO C HRISTOPHER , Chicago, IL ; E VAN L ANGDON , Fabricant LLP, Washington, DC

.
E LAINE B LAIS , Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, forintervenors General Electric Company, Savant Technologies LLC. Also represented by D OUGLAS J. K LINE , K EVIN P. M ARTIN , L ANA S. S HIFERMAN ; P ATRICK M C C ARTHY , Washington, DC.

R YAN K. W

ALSH , Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for intervenors Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Home Depot, Inc. Also represented by P ARTH M ATALIA ; R ITA J. Y OON , San Francisco, CA.

M ICHAEL J. B ONELLA , Flaster Greenberg, PC, Philadelphia, P A, for intervenors IKEA Supply AG, IKEA U.S. Retail LLC, IKEA of Sweden AB. Also represented by C ORALEINE K ITT , J OSEPH K LINICKI , A AKASH P ATEL

.
N ICHOLAS A. B ROWN , Greenberg Traurig
, LLP, San F rancisco, CA, argued for all intervenors. Intervenor Satco Products, Inc. A lso represented by S COTT J OSEPH B ORNSTEIN , B RIAN J OSEPH P REW , New York, NY; C YRUS F RELINGHUYSEN , Washington, DC; R OBERT P. L YNN , J R

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

J AY E MERICK , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chic ago, IL, for intervenor Global Value Lighting, LLC. Also represented by E RIC D AVID H AYES ; A BIGAIL L AUER L ITOW , Washington, DC.

A DAM S WAIN , Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC, forintervenor Signify North America Corporation. Also represented by R OSS B ARTON , K ARLEE N. W ROBLEWSKI , Charlotte, NC. Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 3

J AY R EIZISS , McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, for intervenor Feit Electric Company, Inc. Also represented by A LEXANDER O TT ; S IMEON P APACOSTAS , K

ALPESH S HAH , Benesch Friedlander Copla n & Aronoff, Chicago, IL.

H OUDA M ORAD , Office of General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by W AYNE W. H ERRINGTON , S IDNEY A. R OSENZWEIG

.

______________________
Befor e M OORE , Chief Judge
, T ARANTO and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. C HEN , 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 Pr oducts 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: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 4

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 ba sed on the “molding” limitation are supported by substantial evidence, we affir m 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, 135 8 (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 .” Appella nt’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 p atent at c laim 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 fail ed 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: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 5

13 l. 65 – col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 l. 59 – col. 1 6 l. 12 ; ’854 p atent at c laim 1, col

. 14 ll. 10

– 26, col. 16 ll. 49

– 67

. Moreover, Regents’s proposed construction of “formed component”
pro vides no clarity as to any physical characteristics required by the “molding ,” as we see no distinction between

a formed an d 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. ” E xpert 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 t hat the Commission erred by failing to focus solely on th e portions of the filament immediatel y “surrounding the LED .” Appellant’s Br. 42

– 46. T his argument is untimely, however, as it was not raised to the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) and only argued in the petition for Commission revi ew. See Order No. 2: Notice of Ground Rules , at 28
, ITC Investigation No. 337

- TA

1220 (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 c annot now

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Putting aside the untimeliness of this argument, w e disagree with Regents’s reading of the specification ; the disclosed “molding” is first molded or shaped to have a particularized consistent appearance, and then subsequent ly “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: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 6

claim surprise by the AL J 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. 336 4– 65 (Tr. 639:22

– 640:11); J.A. 11963 ( Regents Post

Hr’g Br.)

. In sum
, we reject Regent s ’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 Rege nt s ’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