NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD., FKA SKC 

KOLON PI, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KANEKA CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2019-2214

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:16-cv-05948-AGMAA, Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

______________________

Decided: March 16, 2021

______________________

JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by JIHONG 

LOU; THOMAS KOGLMAN, Cleveland, OH; STEVEN J. CORR, 

Los Angeles, CA; YEAH-SIL MOON, New York, NY; SEAN 

CHRISTIAN PLATT, San Diego, CA; MATTHEW J. SILVEIRA, 

San Francisco, CA.

 ANTHONY J. DAIN, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. 

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2021
2 PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION

Also represented by RAYMOND K. CHAN, DAVE DEONARINE,

FREDERICK K. TAYLOR.

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

PI Advanced Materials Co., Ltd., formerly known as 

SKC Kolon PI, Inc. (“SKPI”) filed a declaratory judgment 

action against Kaneka Corp. (“Kaneka”) in the United 

States District Court for the Central District of California

seeking a declaration of non-infringement of Kaneka’s U.S. 

Patent No. 7,691,961 (“the ’961 patent”). Kaneka counterclaimed for induced infringement of the ’961 patent and

U.S. Patent Nos. 9,441,082 (“the ’082 patent”) and 

6,264,866 (“the ’866 patent”).

The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. For the SKPI products at issue on appeal, 

the district court concluded that no reasonable jury could 

find that they were imported into the United States, which 

meant that Kaneka could not prove the underlying direct 

infringement essential to its inducement claims. Kaneka 

appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

I

Kaneka and SKPI are competitors in the manufacture 

and sale of polyimide film, which is used in mobile phones. 

The film is incorporated into mobile phones through a multitiered supply chain. First, a polyimide film manufacturer, such as Kaneka or SKPI, makes the film and sells it 

to a laminate manufacturer. Second, the laminate manufacturer laminates the film to form flexible copper clad laminates (“FCCLs”) and sells those to a circuit board 

manufacturer. Third, the circuit board manufacturer uses 

the FCCLs to make flexible printed circuit boards (“FPCs”) 

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2021
PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION 3

and sells those to a module maker.1 Fourth, the module 

maker incorporates the FPCs into modules (i.e., components of a mobile phone, such as a display or camera) and 

sells the modules to a set manufacturer. Fifth, and finally, 

the set manufacturer (e.g., Apple or Samsung Electronics)

incorporates the modules into mobile phones.

Kaneka and SKPI have litigated before. In Kaneka 

Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-03397 (C.D. Cal.) 

(“the 3397 case”), Kaneka alleged that SKPI induced infringement of the ’961 patent (among others) in the form of 

U.S. importation of certain accused SKPI films—in particular, certain film types bearing prefixes “IF,” “LN,” and 

“LV” (collectively, “the older films”). In that case, Kaneka 

relied on its expert Mr. Napper to trace the amount of 

square meters of the older films that was reasonably likely 

to have progressed through each stage of the supply chain. 

In November 2015, a jury found that SKPI induced infringement of the ’961 patent as to the older films.

Following the jury verdict, in January 2016, SKPI announced to its customers that “through its continued R&D 

efforts, [it] ha[d] developed more efficient and stable manufacturing processes . . . to provide polyimide films with 

improved film properties and cost savings to its customers.” J.A. 16199. SKPI also informed its customers that 

“[w]ith this change, . . . the existing product types IF and 

LN, and LV will be supplied as types GF and GV respectively which are the new integrated nomenclatures.” 

J.A. 16199.

II

SKPI filed the present action in August 2016, seeking 

a declaratory judgment that its alleged redesigned films do 

1 Laminate manufacturers (i.e., entities in the second step of the supply chain) may also use polyimide film 

to produce coverlay, which is used to protect FPCs.

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 3 Filed: 03/16/2021
4 PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION

not practice the claims of the ’961 patent and that its actions relating to those films do not infringe the patent. 

Kaneka counterclaimed for induced infringement of the

’961, ’082, and ’866 patents. Kaneka’s infringement allegations concerned ten SKPI film types relevant here: GF030 

(7.5 μm), GF040 (10 μm), GF050 (12.5 μm), GF100 (25 μm), 

GF200 (50 μm), GF300 (75 μm), GV050 (12.5 μm), GV100 

(25 μm), GV200 (50 μm), and GV300 (75 μm) (collectively, 

“the accused films”).2 It is undisputed that SKPI did not 

begin making and selling the accused films before January 

2016.

Following fact and expert discovery, SKPI moved for 

summary judgment of non-infringement. SKPI argued 

that Kaneka could not prove the direct infringement required for its inducement claim because it lacked evidence 

that the accused films were imported into the United 

States. After holding two hearings on the summary-judgment motion, as well as entertaining a supplemental brief 

from Kaneka (and a response from SKPI), the district court 

issued a thorough order granting summary judgment for

SKPI.

As to the accused films generally, the district court began by observing that Kaneka lacked any direct evidence 

of importation; rather, it presented only circumstantial evidence about the supply chain from SKPI’s manufacture of 

the films to the mobile phones that are ultimately imported 

into the United States. The court also contrasted the evidence of importation in this case with that presented in the 

3397 case. It noted that, unlike the 3397 case, where 

Mr. Napper’s expert report contained “some significant 

2 Although Kaneka accused additional film types as

infringing, the district court granted summary judgment 

for SKPI as to these types (albeit on different grounds), 

J.A. 21308–09, and Kaneka has not appealed the summary 

judgment as to these types. 

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 4 Filed: 03/16/2021
PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION 5

analysis” tracing the amount of square meters of the film

at issue that was reasonably likely to have progressed 

through each stage of the supply chain, “neither [Mr.] Napper nor Kaneka’s infringement expert . . . present[s] a comparable analysis.” J.A. 21310. Indeed, the court noted that 

Kaneka’s infringement expert report did “not address the 

issue of whether the accused films are imported into the 

United States at all.” J.A. 21310.

The court then analyzed the evidence Kaneka did put 

forth. Although Kaneka emphasized SKPI’s relationship 

with two large Korean FCCL manufacturers, the court observed that Kaneka lacked evidence about what happens 

to the accused films next—including whether the FPC and 

module makers use other film or other FCCL manufacturers (including from outside Korea), or whether there was a 

specific thought process relating to what mobile phones 

with what materials from certain suppliers would be sold 

where. The court also noted that Kaneka’s estimates of 

SKPI’s market share and other general statistics were 

“overwhelmingly based” on evidence that pre-dated when 

SKPI actually began making and selling the accused films. 

See J.A. 21313. After carefully considering Kaneka’s evidence, the court deemed it insufficient to raise a question 

of material fact to support Kaneka’s inducement claims. 

J.A. 21316.

The court further considered Kaneka’s argument that, 

for two accused film types in particular—the GF050 

(12.5 μm) and GF100 (25 μm)—SKPI was the exclusive 

supplier of film for certain types of mobile phones sold in 

the United States. But the court determined that this argument rested on inadmissible hearsay testimony. 

J.A. 21316. It ultimately concluded that, “[a]s with the 

other general evidence Kaneka submit[ted], [Kaneka] has 

not provided enough to support an induced infringement 

claim for these two films.” J.A. 21316–17.

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 5 Filed: 03/16/2021
6 PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION

The district court entered judgment for SKPI. Kaneka 

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a grant of summary judgment under the law 

of the regional circuit—here, the Ninth Circuit, which reviews such grants de novo. Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, 

Inc., 955 F.3d 1379, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (first citing 

Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 949 F.3d 691, 693 

(Fed. Cir. 2020); and then citing L. F. v. Lake Wash. Sch. 

Dist. #414, 947 F.3d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 2020)). Summary 

judgment is appropriate if after viewing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing 

all reasonable inferences in its favor, no genuine issue of 

material fact exists. Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Rsrv. v. California, 973 F.3d 

953, 961 (9th Cir. 2020). A fact issue is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict 

for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

We first address Kaneka’s arguments as to importation 

of the accused films generally, then its exclusive-supplier 

arguments as to the GF050 (12.5 μm) and GF100 (25 μm) 

films specifically.

I

Kaneka’s importation case for the accused films largely 

rests on the evidence and findings from the 3397 case. 

Kaneka begins by arguing that the accused films are “the 

same” as the older films found to infringe in the 3397 case. 

See Appellant’s Br. 18–23. We agree with the district court, 

however, that Kaneka has not put forth sufficient evidence 

to create a triable issue of fact as to the accused films being

“the same” as the older film, different in name only. 

J.A. 21315. 

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 6 Filed: 03/16/2021
PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION 7

For example, Kaneka says that its infringement expert 

tested the accused films and determined that they “continue[] to infringe . . . just as [the older films] did.” Appellant’s Br. 20. To the extent that this phrasing suggests that 

Kaneka’s infringement expert compared the two sets of 

film to one another, that is not so. The cited portion of 

Kaneka’s infringement expert report says nothing of any 

actual comparison, and indeed, as SKPI notes, Kaneka’s 

infringement expert did not compare the accused films to 

the older films at all. See J.A. 21315 (district court likewise

observing that Kaneka did not “present an expert opinion 

. . . that the old and [accused] films are, indeed, the same 

films”).

In its reply brief, Kaneka says that whether the older 

films are identical to the accused films is a “red herring”; it

focuses more on whether the films are the same with respect to the manner in which they are distributed. Reply 

Br. 11; see id. at 12 (“[T]he evidence shows that the 

[a]ccused [f]ilms replaced the [older films] to the same customers in the same supply chain.”). As to the accused films’ 

distribution, Kaneka again relies on the supply chain it established in the 3397 case for the older films. Yet, as the 

district court noted (and as Kaneka does not dispute), 

Kaneka presented no comparable expert analysis of the 

supply chain in this case. And having examined the evidence Kaneka has put forth, we reach the same conclusion 

as the district court: Kaneka’s evidence lacks necessary information about what happens in the downstream supplychain stages, or is otherwise stale—dating from a time (often years) before the accused films came to market. See 

J.A. 21312–16. Even viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to Kaneka and drawing all reasonable inferences 

in its favor, we agree that Kaneka has not provided sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to U.S. importation of the accused films generally.

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 7 Filed: 03/16/2021
8 PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION

II

Kaneka also contends that SKPI is the exclusive film 

supplier for certain types of mobile phones sold in the 

United States. This argument is relevant to SKPI’s GF050 

(12.5 μm) and GF100 (25 μm) accused films in particular. 

Specifically, Kaneka argues that (1) SKPI supplies 100% of 

the polyimide film that module maker Samsung Display 

Company (“SDC”) uses for coverlay in its OLED displays 

(for ultimate use in certain Apple and Samsung Electronics 

mobile phones); (2) the GF050 (12.5 μm) and GF100 

(25 μm) films were used for that purpose; and (3) SDC is 

the sole supplier of OLED displays for these particular Apple and Samsung Electronics mobile phones, which are 

types sold in the United States.

Kaneka supports this argument with testimony from 

one of its employees, Mr. Tsuji. Mr. Tsuji testified that 

“SKPI is the only company SDC certifies and uses” for polyimide film for its OLED displays. J.A. 16857–58. According to Mr. Tsuji, the source of his understanding in this 

regard came from people at other companies. See 

J.A. 19503–06. Before the district court, SKPI argued that 

this testimony from Mr. Tsuji was inadmissible hearsay. 

The district court agreed; it rejected Kaneka’s exclusivesupplier argument as based on “inadmissible hearsay testimony” as well as other evidence that did not support 

SKPI’s alleged exclusivity. J.A. 21316–17. We see no 

abuse of discretion or other error in the district court’s 

characterization of this testimony as inadmissible hearsay. 

See Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 416 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“Evidentiary decisions made in the context of summary judgment motions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”).

On appeal, Kaneka advances arguments for why 

Mr. Tsuji’s testimony as to SKPI’s exclusivity is not hearsay. For example, it argues that Mr. Tsuji’s testimony is 

not hearsay because it constitutes a businessman’s 

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 8 Filed: 03/16/2021
PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION 9

assessment, acquired through “perceptions based on industry experience.” Reply Br. 23 (first citing Agfa-Gevaert, 

A.G. v. A.B. Dick Co., 879 F.2d 1518, 1523 (7th Cir. 1989); 

and then quoting Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 

802 F.2d 994, 1004–05 (8th Cir. 1986)); see also Appellant’s 

Br. 42–43. SKPI responds that Kaneka waived (or rather, 

forfeited) these arguments by not raising or developing 

them below. We agree with SKPI. 

The history of the summary-judgment proceedings is 

illuminating here. SKPI argued—in both its motion for 

summary judgment and its reply in support thereof—that 

Kaneka’s exclusive-supplier argument rested on Mr. 

Tsuji’s hearsay discussions with others. J.A. 8019–20; 

J.A. 12670–72 & n.6 (“Kaneka cannot cure the hearsay nature of these conversations merely by naming the employers of the third parties with whom [Mr. Tsuji] spoke, even 

if those employers are alleged Kaneka customers.”). On the 

day of the first hearing, the district court issued a tentative 

order expressing concern with the evidentiary foundation 

for the fact of SKPI’s exclusive-supplier status. 

J.A. 19683–85. This issue was discussed at that hearing. 

J.A. 19738–39. The court then let Kaneka file supplemental papers. Kaneka’s supplemental brief dedicated two 

sentences to its exclusive-supplier argument, followed by a 

string citation consisting mostly of portions of Mr. Tsuji’s 

deposition testimony, J.A. 20066—all of which SKPI had 

already challenged as hearsay. SKPI’s response to 

Kaneka’s supplemental brief again argued that Kaneka’s 

cited deposition testimony was hearsay. J.A. 20170–71, 

20192–93. And then, at the second hearing, “[t]he parties 

did not further address the concerns regarding the evidence relating to these two films.” J.A. 21316. At no point 

in Kaneka’s multiple filings or the multiple hearings did 

Kaneka raise or develop the arguments it makes here as to 

why Mr. Tsuji’s testimony was not hearsay. We therefore 

deem those arguments forfeited. See Fresenius USA, Inc. 

v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 9 Filed: 03/16/2021
10 PI ADVANCED MATERIALS CO., LTD v. KANEKA CORPORATION

(noting that “[i]f a party fails to raise an argument before 

the trial court, or presents only a skeletal or undeveloped 

argument to the trial court, we may deem that argument 

waived on appeal”).

Kaneka also develops its exclusive-supplier argument 

in a different way. Kaneka argues that (1) it and SKPI are 

effectively a Korean duopoly in terms of polyimide film 

used for coverlay; (2) SDC sources its polyimide film used 

for coverlay only from Korea; and (3) SDC has certified only 

SKPI for polyimide film used for coverlay, which Kaneka 

deduces because it has been unable to secure certification

for itself. SKPI again argues that Kaneka forfeited this argument by not raising or developing it before the district 

court. Again, we agree. Even if we were to set aside that 

this argument relies on testimony from Mr. Tsuji that 

SKPI argued was hearsay (an issue discussed above),3

Kaneka’s filings failed to adequately develop this argument to the district court. We therefore deem it forfeited. 

See Fresenius, 582 F.3d at 1296. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Kaneka’s other arguments and

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED

3 Compare Appellant’s Br. 39–40 (collecting citations 

to portions of Mr. Tsuji’s deposition testimony), with

J.A. 12670, and J.A. 20192–93.

Case: 19-2214 Document: 87 Page: 10 Filed: 03/16/2021