Court Opinion

ID: 9394759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 14:01:50.18048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:02.553119
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1521   Document: 130     Page: 1   Filed: 05/16/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

  REGENTS 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 CORPORATION,
         FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,
                     Intervenors
               ______________________

                        2022-1521
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States International Trade
 Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1220.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: May 16, 2023
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1521   Document: 130    Page: 2    Filed: 05/16/2023

 2       THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   v. ITC

     SHAWN G. HANSEN, Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles,
 CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by VINCENT
 CACHO CAPATI, SETH D. LEVY; ANGELO CHRISTOPHER, Chi-
 cago, IL; EVAN LANGDON, Fabricant LLP, Washington, DC.

     ELAINE BLAIS, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, for
 intervenors General Electric Company, Savant Technolo-
 gies LLC. Also represented by DOUGLAS J. KLINE, KEVIN P.
 MARTIN, LANA S. SHIFERMAN; PATRICK MCCARTHY, Wash-
 ington, DC.

    RYAN K. WALSH, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for interve-
 nors Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, Home Depot
 U.S.A., Inc., Home Depot, Inc. Also represented by PARTH
 MATALIA; RITA J. YOON, San Francisco, CA.

     MICHAEL J. BONELLA, Flaster Greenberg, PC, Philadel-
 phia, PA, for intervenors IKEA Supply AG, IKEA U.S. Re-
 tail LLC, IKEA of Sweden AB. Also represented by
 CORALEINE KITT, JOSEPH KLINICKI, AAKASH PATEL.

    NICHOLAS A. BROWN, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, San
 Francisco, CA, argued for all intervenors. Intervenor Satco
 Products, Inc. Also represented by SCOTT JOSEPH
 BORNSTEIN, BRIAN JOSEPH PREW, New York, NY; CYRUS
 FRELINGHUYSEN, Washington, DC; ROBERT P. LYNN, JR.,
 Lynn Gartner Dunne & Frigenti, LLP, Mineola, NY.

     JAY EMERICK, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for
 intervenor Global Value Lighting, LLC. Also represented
 by ERIC DAVID HAYES; ABIGAIL LAUER LITOW, Washington,
 DC.

     ADAM SWAIN, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC, for
 intervenor Signify North America Corporation. Also rep-
 resented by ROSS BARTON, KARLEE N. WROBLEWSKI, Char-
 lotte, NC.
Case: 22-1521    Document: 130     Page: 3    Filed: 05/16/2023

 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   v. ITC       3

     JAY REIZISS, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washing-
 ton, DC, for intervenor Feit Electric Company, Inc. Also
 represented by ALEXANDER OTT; SIMEON PAPACOSTAS,
 KALPESH SHAH, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff,
 Chicago, IL.

    HOUDA MORAD, Office of General Counsel, United
 States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
 argued for appellee. Also represented by WAYNE W.
 HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A. ROSENZWEIG.
                  ______________________

   Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
                         Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
     Regents of the University of California (Regents) ap-
 peals 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 Com-
 mission determined that Respondents’ Accused Products
 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. Con-
 taining 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: 4    Filed: 05/16/2023

 4        THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA    v. ITC

 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 con-
 struction of “molding” and determine that its findings of
 noninfringement based on the “molding” limitation are
 supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the Commis-
 sion’s determination without reaching the alternative
 grounds for its decision.
     “We review the Commission’s final determinations un-
 der the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act.”
 Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 936
 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We review the Commis-
 sion’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 neces-
 sarily require a structure with uniform shape and that it
 should be construed to mean a “formed component.” Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 40–41. However, based upon the intrinsic ev-
 idence 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 patent at claim 1, col.

     1   Regents also argues in its reply brief that the Com-
 mission’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
 failed 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: 5     Filed: 05/16/2023

 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA         v. ITC        5

 13 l. 65 – col. 14 l. 14, col. 15 l. 59 – col. 16 l. 12; ’854 patent
 at claim 1, col. 14 ll. 10–26, col. 16 ll. 49–67. Moreover,
 Regents’s proposed construction of “formed component”
 provides no clarity as to any physical characteristics re-
 quired by the “molding,” as we see no distinction between
 a formed and unformed component. Thus, we agree with
 the Commission’s construction of “molding.”
      Turning to infringement, substantial evidence sup-
 ports the Commission’s finding that the Respondents’ Ac-
 cused Products lack a “molding.” Expert 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 that the Commission erred by
 failing to focus solely on the portions of the filament imme-
 diately “surrounding the LED.” Appellant’s Br. 42–46.
 This argument is untimely, however, as it was not raised
 to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and only argued in
 the petition for Commission review. See Order No. 2: No-
 tice 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 cannot now

 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Putting aside the untimeliness of
 this argument, we disagree with Regents’s reading of the
 specification; the disclosed “molding” is first molded or
 shaped to have a particularized consistent appearance, and
 then subsequently “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: 6   Filed: 05/16/2023

 6       THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   v. ITC

 claim surprise by the ALJ final initial determination’s
 analysis of the entire filament in the accused products be-
 cause (1) the expert testimony from both sides at the hear-
 ing 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.
 3364–65 (Tr. 639:22–640:11); J.A. 11963 (Regents Post-
 Hr’g Br.). In sum, we reject Regents’s arguments attacking
 the Commission’s fact findings.
     Because we affirm the Commission’s claim construc-
 tion and non-infringement determination as to the “mold-
 ing” limitation, we need not address Regents’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