N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ CREATIVE KINGDOMS, L LC, AND NEW KINGDOMS, LLC, Appellants,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee,

AND

NINTENDO CO., LTD., AND NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Intervenors.

______________________

2014

- 1072

______________________ Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337

- TA

- 770.

______________________
Decided: December 19, 2014

______________________

J AMES R. B ARNEY , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were E LIZABETH D. F ERRILL and L AURENCE M. S ANDELL

.CREATIVE KINGDOMS , LLC v. ITC 2

S IDNEY A. R OSENZWEIG , Attorney Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. O n the brief were D OMINIC L. B IANCHI , General Counsel, W AYNE W. H ERRINGTON , Assistant General Counsel and J IA C HEN , Attorney Advisor

.

S TEPHEN R. S MITH , Cooley LLP, of Reston, Virginia, for intervenors. With him on the brief were T HOMAS J. F RIEL , J R ., of San Francisco, California, and S TEPHEN C. N EAL , T IMOTHY S. T ETER and M AT THEW J. B RIGHAM , of Palo Alto, California.

______________________
Before N EWMAN , B RYSON , and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges.

O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judge.

Creative Kingdoms, LLC and New Kingdoms, L L C (collectively, “Creative Kingdoms”) appeal the Intern ational Tra de Commission’s (“Commission”) finding that Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. (colle ctively, “Nintend o ”) did not violate § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing, selling for importation, or selling certain video game systems and controllers. Specifically, Creative Kingdom s challenges the Commission’s determ ination that claim 7 of U.S. Pa tent No . 7,500,917 ( the “ ’917 Pate nt ” ) and claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,896,742 (the

“’ 742 Patent ”) (collectively, “the asserted claims”) are invalid for lack of enablement and written description, that the accused Nintendo product s do not infringe the asserted claims , and that Creative K ingdom s failed to establish the existence of a domestic industry relating to the patented articles

. Because the Commission properly determined that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of enablement, we affirm

.CREATIVE KINGDOMS , LLC v. ITC 3

D ISCUSSION

The ’917 and ’7 42 Patents generally describe motionsensing devic es, which detect motion and generate wir eless signals ba sed on that motion to create a desired play effect in an interactive environment. Specifically, claim 7 of the ’917 Patent is directed to a toy wand comprising a pair of first motion sensors, which detect a motion, and a second motion sensor, which detects a different motion from the first. These sensors then generate signals based on the detected motions, which are transmitted to a receiver to control play effe cts. Similarly, claim 24 of the ’742 Patent is directed to a motion- sensitive device that contains two arrangements of sensors, which detect different motions and generate signals that activate or control play effects based upon those motions. The two

as serted patents are related

— the ’742 Patent is a conti nuation

- in

- part of the ’917 Patent

, and it is undisputed that the relevant portions of the two specifications are the

same.

The Commission concluded that the asserted claims

are invalid for lack of enablement. It first determined that a novel aspect of both claims was the combination of

sensors. Because the scope of the asserted claims enco mpasses both mechanical and electronic sensors

, but the specifications d o not disclose ho w to use multiple electro nic sensors together to detect different motions , the Co mmission concluded that the specifications failed to enable the full scope of the asserted claims.

We agree with the Commission’s enablement concl usion. “To be enabling, th e specifica tion must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC , 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted)

. It is well establish ed that a specification need not disclose what is well

- knownCREATIVE KINGDOMS , LLC v. ITC 4

in the art , but “[i]t is the specification, [and] not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute ad equate enablement.” Auto . Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc

., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S , 108 F .3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

Here, the novelty of the asserted claims includes the use of sensors in combination

, and the scope of the asser ted claims includes both mechanical and electronic se nsors

. But the two specifications contain no guidance as to how electronic sensors, such as accelerometers and gyr oscopes, can be substituted or added to detect different motio ns, as required by the asserted claims. Instead, the specifications merely include a laundry list of the types of electronic sensors that could be used. ’ 917 Patent col. 10:3 2–42 ; ’742 Patent col. 10:56

– 66

. Without any further guidance, the specificatio ns fail to disclose how to make and use the full scope of the asserted claims. Accordingly, the asserted claims are invalid for lack of enablement.

Because the Commission correctly determined that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of enablement, we need not address Creative Kingdoms’ other arguments regarding written description, infringement, and domestic industry

. See Solomon Techs., Inc. v. I TC , 5 24 F.3d 13 10
, 13 20 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“ [W]e are not required to address every possible ground on which the Commission’s order might be sustained.”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the Co mmission’s finding of no Section 337 violation.

AFFIRMED