Opinion ID: 4117627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim Construction of “Oxidizing”

Text: At the outset, Kaneka argues the district court “improperly changed” our construction of “oxidizing” in Kingdomway from “some action resulting in oxidation” to an action that increases the amount of oxidation above a baseline of passive oxidation. It argues the district court’s changed construction led it to erroneously exclude Dr. Sherman’s expert report and grant summary judgment of noninfringement. We agree in part. In Kingdomway, we held “oxidation requires an active step.” 790 F.3d at 1305. We explained that “because the claims affirmatively recite the step of ‘oxidizing,’ ‘oxidizing’ cannot be interpreted as doing nothing, or to simply allow oxidation to occur on its own.” Id. This construc- ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION 5 tion “requir[es] active oxidation during the oxidation step . . . but does not exclude passive oxidation during other steps.” Id. at 1306. 2 The district court interpreted our construction to mean “some amount of oxidation, in excess of that which occurs naturally from exposure to ambient air, must be caused by an ‘active step’ in the coenzyme Q10 manufacturing process.” J.A. 48 (emphasis added). This is not precise. The only bounds provided by Kingdomway on what constitutes an “active step” or “active oxidation” is that it does not require use of an oxidizing agent. 790 F.3d at 1306. The opinion emphasizes that there must be “some action resulting in oxidation”; the oxidizing step “cannot be interpreted as doing nothing, or to simply allow oxidation to occur on its own.” Id. at 1305–06 (emphasis added). But the opinion does not state that to be an active step, the oxidation rate must be greater than that of passive oxidation. And it is silent as to any degree of oxidation that would be necessary to qualify as active oxidation. The opinion simply requires that there be some action that results in oxidation. Id. at 1307. A review of the district court’s construction of “oxidizing” on appeal in Kingdomway frames the Kingdomway construction. There, the district court held that “oxidizing” required, inter alia, “active conversion of the reduced CoQ10 into oxidized CoQ10,” which was supported by the specification’s examples using an oxidizing agent in the oxidizing step. Kaneka Corp. v. Kingdomway Grp. Co., No. 2:11-cv-02389, 2013 WL 4647299, at  (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2013), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 790 F.3d 2 The question whether the term “oxidizing” re- quires an oxidizing agent was before the prior panel of this court, and we are bound by their decision that it does not. See id. Thus, it is not a decision that we can review. 6 ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO., LTD. v. KANEKA CORPORATION 1298. In adopting its “active conversion” construction, the district court rejected an alternative proposed construction that “oxidizing” means “‘increasing the rate’ of conversion to oxidized CoQ10.” Id. at –8. The district court reasoned that “[w]ithout a baseline reference for comparison, a person of skill in the art cannot know whether a rate of conversion is increased,” making such a construction “too vague to adopt.” Id. at . On appeal, we “agree[d] that oxidation requires an active step,” but held “it does not require the use of an oxidizing agent.” Kingdomway, 790 F.3d at 1305–06. The opinion does not place additional qualifications on what must occur to be an “active step.” And although discussed in briefing to this court, see Appellees’ Br. 46–47, Kingdomway, No. 14-1373 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2014), the Kingdomway court did not require “increased oxidation” “in excess of that which occurs naturally from exposure to ambient air.” See J.A. 48. Against this backdrop, we consider Kaneka’s arguments that the district court (1) abused its discretion in excluding Mr. Sherman’s expert report and (2) erred in granting ZMC’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. We affirm the district court’s exclusion of portions of Mr. Sherman’s expert report and vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.