Opinion ID: 2773200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Schematic Diagram Timer Presented by Dr.

Text: Yufa Cannot Be Addressed Because He Failed to Present it to the District Court 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, 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 be- fore 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.