Court Opinion

ID: 9390276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 15:01:11.604027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.296100
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-1965    Document: 85           Page: 1       Filed: 04/27/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

         THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.,
                  Appellant

                                  v.

      INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
                  Appellee

  NORTEK, INC., NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL
  LLC, FKA LINEAR, LLC, GTO ACCESS SYSTEMS,
        LLC, FKA GATES THAT OPEN, LLC,
                   Intervenors

           -------------------------------------------------

  NORTEK, INC., NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL
  LLC, FKA LINEAR, LLC, GTO ACCESS SYSTEMS,
        LLC, FKA GATES THAT OPEN, LLC,
                   Appellants

                                  v.

      INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
                  Appellee

         THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.,
                    Intervenor
              ______________________

                    2020-1965, 2021-1829
Case: 20-1965     Document: 85     Page: 2    Filed: 04/27/2023

 2                             CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC

                   ______________________

    Appeals from the United States International Trade
 Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1118.
                 ______________________

                   Decided: April 27, 2023
                   ______________________

     JAMES MURPHY DOWD, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
 and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appel-
 lant. Also represented by DAVID CHARLES MARCUS.

     CARL PAUL BRETSCHER, Office of the General Counsel,
 United States International Trade Commission, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC
 L. BIANCHI, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A. ROSENZW-
 EIG.

     EVAN SKINNER DAY, Perkins Coie, LLP, San Diego, CA,
 argued for cross-appellants. Also represented by MATTHEW
 COOK BERNSTEIN; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH; JAMES
 B. COUGHLAN, Washington, DC; ANDREW DUFRESNE, Mad-
 ison, WI.
                   ______________________

     Before STOLL, SCHALL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 STARK, Circuit Judge.
     The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (“Chamberlain”) filed a
 complaint with the International Trade Commission
 (“Commission”) against Nortek, Inc., Nortek Security &
 Control LLC, and GTO Access Systems LLC (collectively,
 “Nortek”), alleging that Nortek’s importation, sale for im-
 portation, or sale after importation of movable barrier op-
 erator systems and components thereof violated section
 337 of the Tariff Act of 1920, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Specifically,
 Chamberlain alleged that certain of Nortek’s garage door
Case: 20-1965     Document: 85      Page: 3   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                            3

 openers infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,741,052 (“’052 pa-
 tent”), 8,587,404 (“’404 patent”), and 7,755,223 (“’223 pa-
 tent”). The Commission issued Final Determinations on
 April 22, 2020 and December 3, 2020, finding no infringe-
 ment of the ’052 and ’404 patents and infringement of the
 ’223 patent. See In the Matter of Certain Movable Barrier
 Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
 TA-1118, 2020 WL 7223401 (Dec. 3, 2020) (Final); In the
 Matter of Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and
 Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, 2020 WL
 1987053 (Apr. 22, 2020) (Final).
     Chamberlain appeals the Commission’s Final Determi-
 nation of April 22, 2020 regarding the ’052 patent and the
 ’404 patent. Nortek appeals the Commission’s Final Deter-
 mination of December 3, 2020 regarding the ’223 patent.
     With respect to the ’052 patent, which has expired, we
 vacate and remand for the Commission to dismiss the in-
 fringement claim as moot. We also vacate and remand the
 Commission’s determination concerning the ’404 patent be-
 cause it is based on the application of an incorrect construc-
 tion of “movable barrier operator.”          We affirm the
 Commission’s determination that Nortek infringed the ’223
 patent.
                               I
                               A
     The patents involved here teach features of movable
 barrier systems, such as automatic garage door openers.
 The ’052 patent, entitled “Post-Automatically Determined
 User-Modifiable Activity Performance Limit Apparatus
 and Method,” discloses a control system combining auto-
 matic calibration and manual calibration adjustments. In
 particular, the described control system automatically de-
 termines a safety threshold at which to stop operating
 (thereby preventing the movable barrier from closing when
 its path is blocked) while still permitting the user to
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85      Page: 4    Filed: 04/27/2023

 4                            CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC

 manually adjust the automatically determined threshold
 level. The ’052 patent expired on April 11, 2022, during the
 pendency of this appeal.
     The ’404 patent, entitled “Movable Barrier Operator
 and Transmitter with Imminent Barrier Moving Notifica-
 tion,” teaches a movable barrier operator that plays a
 sound – for instance, an alarm – indicating that a barrier
 is imminently about to move, but only does so when the
 barrier is operated remotely. The sound is not played when
 the movable barrier operator is operated locally. The sys-
 tem determines whether to sound the imminent barrier
 warning by distinguishing between whether it received a
 signal from a remote source, such as a smartphone, or from
 a local source, such as a button on a garage wall.
    Figure 1 from the ’404 patent depicts a garage door
 opener practicing the invention:

 Item 12 in the figure is a “head unit” and item 40 is a “wall
 station.” The head unit is connected to the wall station by
 a wire, item 41.
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 5   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                           5

    Chamberlain asserted claim 11 of the ’404 patent,
 which recites:
       A movable barrier system with a moving-bar-
       rier imminent motion notification, the system
       comprising:

       [a] a movable ba[rri]er operator connected to
       control movement of a movable barrier be-
       tween a first position and a second position;

       [b] the movable barrier operator comprising:
       a communication connection comprising at
       least one of the group consisting of: a direct
       wireless connection to a transmitter, a local
       wired connection, a system wired connection,
       a network connection, and a wireless commu-
       nication system connection; and

       [c] a processor configured to determine
       whether a received command for a closing the
       movable barrier was received from at least
       one of the system wired connection, the net-
       work connection, and the wireless communi-
       cation system connection;

       [d] the processor configured to effect the clos-
       ing of the movable barrier in combination
       with operating a moving barrier imminent
       motion notification in response to determin-
       ing that the received command for the closing
       was received from at least one of the system
       wired connection, the network connection,
       and the wireless communication system con-
       nection;
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85      Page: 6    Filed: 04/27/2023

 6                            CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.     v. ITC

       [e] the processor configured to determine
       whether the received command for the closing
       was received from at least one of the direct
       wireless connection to the transmitter and the
       local wired connection;

       [f] the processor configured to effect the clos-
       ing of the movable barrier without operating
       the moving-barrier imminent motion notifica-
       tion in response to determining that the re-
       ceived command for the closing was received
       from at least one of the direct wireless connec-
       tion to the transmitter and the local wired
       connection.
 (Element labels and emphasis added) The parties’ dispute
 largely centers on element [b].
     Each of the products Chamberlain accuses of infringing
 the ’404 patent (which we will refer to as the “’404 Accused
 Products”) has a ceiling-mounted head unit containing a
 motor and a processor, a wall station with a button and a
 processor, wires connecting the head unit and the wall sta-
 tion, and an alarm system. All of the ’404 Accused Prod-
 ucts, except for the Mighty Mule MM9333H and
 MM9333HA, also have a Wi-Fi receiver in the wall station.
     The ’404 Accused Products can be subdivided into two
 categories. First are the “’404 Original Products,” which
 include private label products. In the ’404 Original Prod-
 ucts, the processor in the head unit performs the functions
 described in elements [c]-[f] of claim 11 of the ’404 patent.
 Second are the “’404 Alternative Products,” which incorpo-
 rated changes Nortek made to the software of the ’404 Orig-
 inal Products near the end of fact discovery. The ’404
 Alternative Products differ from the ’404 Original Products
 only in their software; the hardware is identical. Conse-
 quently, and pertinent to the issues before us, for the ’404
 Alternative Products the processor in the wall station
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 7   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                           7

 performs the functions described in elements [c]-[f] of claim
 11, rather than the processor in the head unit doing so, as
 in the ’404 Original Products.
     The ’223 patent, entitled “Movable Barrier Operator
 with Energy Management Control and Corresponding
 Method,” teaches a movable barrier operator system with
 at least two different “operating modes,” in which one of
 the operating modes consumes less energy. Chamberlain
 asserted claims 1 and 21, which are identical in pertinent
 part. Claim 1 recites:
       A movable barrier operator apparatus com-
       prising:

       a power supply that operably couples to at
       least one source of alternating current;

       an obstacle detector; and

       a movable barrier operator which includes a
       controller, the movable barrier operator oper-
       ably coupled to the power supply, receives op-
       erating power from the power supply and has
       at least a first and a second mode of energy
       consumption operation and being further con-
       figured and arranged to:

       selectively open and close a corresponding
       movable barrier; and

       develop an obstacle detector operating mode
       control signal from the controller as a function
       of movable barrier operator system state in-
       formation that indicates whether the barrier
       is open or closed, the obstacle detector operat-
       ing mode control signal being operable to di-
       rectly control the energy usage of the obstacle
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85     Page: 8    Filed: 04/27/2023

 8                            CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.     v. ITC

       detector, the control signal from the controller
       developed as a result of the state information,
       the state information selected from the group
       consisting of motor state information, time in-
       formation, transmission state information,
       voltage state information, switch state infor-
       mation and combinations thereof,

       the obstacle detector operably coupled to the
       power supply and to the movable barrier op-
       erator, receives operating power from the
       power supply, and has a plurality of operating
       modes, wherein at least some of the operating
       modes have different energy usages, and
       wherein the obstacle detector is directly re-
       sponsive to the movable barrier operator ob-
       stacle detector operating mode control signal
       such that:

       during the first mode of energy consumption
       operation, the obstacle detector operates using
       a first energy usage; and

       during the second mode of energy consumption
       operation, the obstacle detector operates using
       a second energy usage, wherein the operating
       power used in one of the energy usages is less
       than the power used by the other energy us-
       age.
 (Emphasis added)
     Chamberlain asserted the ’223 patent against multiple
 Nortek branded and private label garage door openers (the
 “’223 Accused Products”).
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 9   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                           9

                               B
     A Commission administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued
 a claim construction order construing, as relevant here, the
 term “movable barrier operator,” as used in the ’404 patent,
 and “operates,” as used in the ’223 patent. The ALJ con-
 strued “movable barrier operator” according to its plain
 and ordinary meaning, rejecting Nortek’s proposal, which
 would have narrowed the movable barrier operator to “an
 assembly that contains a motor to operate a movable bar-
 rier, also known as a head unit.” J.A. 26 (emphasis added).
 The ALJ explained that “[t]he only time the specification
 references a head unit in relation to the movable barrier
 operator is as a non-limiting ‘example.’” J.A. 26 (quoting
 ’404 patent at 5:36-38). Under the ALJ’s construction,
 therefore, a wall station could function as a movable bar-
 rier operator.
     The ALJ concluded no construction was needed for “op-
 erates” because its plain and ordinary meaning was clear.
 She rejected Nortek’s proposal that “operates” means
 “[w]orks or functions,” a construction she thought would
 improperly import a requirement that the obstacle detector
 must always be energized to a level sufficient to perform
 “work” or perform its ordinary obstacle-detecting functions.
 J.A. 19 (citing ’223 patent at 6:34-38). The ALJ further ex-
 plained that the specification undermined Nortek’s pro-
 posed construction, observing that it disclosed an
 embodiment of an obstacle detector that is only intermit-
 tently functional in its low-energy mode.
     Following a hearing, the ALJ issued an Initial Deter-
 mination on the merits, finding no violation of § 1337 with
 respect to any of the three asserted patents. Regarding the
 ’052 patent, the ALJ found the asserted claim was invalid
 due to obviousness. On the ’404 patent, the ALJ concluded
 – in contradiction to her previous claim construction order
 – that “the ‘movable barrier operator’ of claim 11 does not
 encompass a ‘wall station’ that is found in a 404 Accused
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85      Page: 10    Filed: 04/27/2023

 10                            CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC

 Product.” J.A. 75. She now found the “movable barrier op-
 erator” to be limited to the head unit “as a matter of claim
 construction.” J.A. 76 (capitalization altered); see also J.A.
 101-02. Because Chamberlain identified a processor in the
 wall station as satisfying elements [c] through [f] in the
 ’404 Alternative Products, there was no “movable barrier
 operator” in the ’404 Alternative Products, and they did not
 infringe. The ALJ also found that Chamberlain abandoned
 its argument that the wires connecting the wall station and
 the head unit constitute the “local wired connection” of el-
 ement [b], and further that Chamberlain’s contention that
 “a button on the wall station” satisfied that element was
 untimely. Thus, all of the ’404 Accused Products did not
 infringe claim 11.
     Finally, the ALJ found that the ’223 Accused Products
 did not “operate” in a low-energy mode, because the obsta-
 cle detectors could not perform any function when they
 were in what Chamberlain alleged was the low-energy
 mode. Therefore, the ’223 Accused Products did not in-
 fringe. This conclusion appeared to be in tension with the
 ALJ’s view of the claims at the time of claim construction,
 when she had rejected Nortek’s proposal to import a “works
 or functions” requirement into the term “operates.”
      Chamberlain petitioned for Commission review of the
 ALJ’s findings in the Initial Determination, and Nortek
 filed a contingent petition. In a Final Determination is-
 sued on April 22, 2020, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s
 findings and conclusions for the ’052 patent (finding inva-
 lidity) and the ’404 patent (finding no infringement). The
 Commission addressed the ’223 patent in a separate Final
 Determination issued on December 3, 2020, in which it dis-
 agreed with the ALJ’s application of the term “operates,”
 explaining that she “diverged from the plain meaning . . .
 when . . . requir[ing] the obstacle detector to perform some
 function or operation when it is in the lower energy mode.”
 J.A. 360. The Commission concluded that under the
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 11   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                          11

 correct application of the claim construction the ’223 Ac-
 cused Products infringe claims 1 and 21.
    Chamberlain and Nortek both timely appealed. We
 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6).
                               II
      We review the Commission’s legal determinations, in-
 cluding its claim construction, de novo and its factual find-
 ings for substantial evidence. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v.
 Int’l Trade Comm’n, 341 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
 We review the Commission’s procedural and evidentiary
 decisions, including forfeiture determinations, for abuse of
 discretion. See Winbond Elecs. Corp. v. Int’l Trade
 Comm’n, 262 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001); F.lli De
 Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States,
 216 F.3d 1027, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
                              III
      We consider the Commission’s determinations on each
 patent in turn. First, the parties agree that the expiration
 of the ’052 patent rendered their dispute regarding that pa-
 tent moot. Second, we vacate the Commission’s determi-
 nation regarding the ’404 patent because its analysis relied
 on an incorrect construction of the claim term “movable
 barrier operator.” Finally, we affirm the Commission’s de-
 termination regarding the ’223 patent because it correctly
 applied the plain and ordinary meaning of “operates” as
 used in that patent.
                               A
      The ’052 patent expired on April 11, 2022. Because the
 Commission can only grant prospective relief, and because
 its determinations do not have preclusive effect in district
 courts, Chamberlain can no longer receive the relief it re-
 quested from the Commission (i.e., an exclusion order). See
 Hyosung TNS Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 926 F.3d 1353,
 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Hence, as the parties agree,
Case: 20-1965     Document: 85       Page: 12      Filed: 04/27/2023

 12                              CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.      v. ITC

 Chamberlain’s appeal is moot. Accordingly, we vacate the
 portion of the Commission’s Final Determination of April
 22, 2020 addressing the ’052 patent and remand so the
 Commission can dismiss the action, in relevant part, as
 moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36,
 39-40 (1950).
                                 B
     Chamberlain argues that the Commission made two
 errors with respect to the ’404 patent. First, the Commis-
 sion erred in adopting the ALJ’s second construction of
 “movable barrier operator,” which limited the term to a
 “head unit” and excluded the “wall station.” Second, the
 Commission erred in adopting the ALJ’s conclusion that
 Chamberlain abandoned its “local wired connection” in-
 fringement theory and tried to replace it with an untimely,
 and meritless, “button” theory in its post-hearing brief. We
 agree with Chamberlain that the ALJ applied an incorrect
 construction for “movable barrier operator,” which im-
 pacted the entire infringement analysis for the ’404 patent,
 including the ALJ’s forfeiture decision. Thus, we vacate
 the portion of the Commission’s Final Determination of
 April 22, 2020 adopting these findings by the ALJ and re-
 mand to the Commission for further proceedings based on
 the proper construction. 1

      1  We disagree with the ALJ and Nortek that Cham-
 berlain forfeited its arguments regarding the scope of “mov-
 able barrier operator.”            Chamberlain consistently
 maintained that the “movable barrier operator” in the ’404
 Accused Products may be housed within the head unit
 and/or the wall unit. In its claim construction brief, for ex-
 ample, Chamberlain expressly stated that “the movable
 barrier operator” is “not . . . limit[ed] . . . to any specific as-
 sembly or arrangement.” J.A. 10111. In its pre-hearing
 brief, Chamberlain argued that the “movable barrier
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 13    Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                            13

     In the post-hearing Initial Determination, the ALJ con-
 cluded, as a matter of claim construction, that the “movable
 barrier operator” cannot include a processor located within
 the system’s wall station, despite previously having found
 that the term should have its plain and ordinary meaning.
 See J.A. 76 (“[A]s a matter of claim construction, ‘movable
 barrier operator’ is distinct from ‘wall station.’”) (capitali-
 zation altered); J.A. 101-02 (“As a matter of claim construc-
 tion, the ‘movable barrier operator,’ which possesses the
 claimed ‘processor,’ does not encompass a wall station.”).
 We agree with Chamberlain that the narrow construction
 the ALJ adopted in the Initial Determination is erroneous.
     Nothing in the ’404 patent’s claims or written descrip-
 tion would demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the
 art that the “movable barrier operator” is necessarily lim-
 ited to head units, to the exclusion of wall stations. The
 term is not defined in the specification, nor was there any
 clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope during
 prosecution. Therefore, the correct construction is the
 term’s plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a
 skilled artisan in the context of the patent. See Thorner v.

 operator” should not be limited to the head unit and that
 the ’404 Alternative Products contained “a movable barrier
 operator comprising a head unit and a wall station.” J.A.
 10621-23. Chamberlain solicited testimony at the hearing
 from its expert supporting this contention. See J.A. 1291
 (Chamberlain’s expert testifying that wall station in ’404
 Alternative Products is “very much part of the operator. . . .
 [I]t actually implements some of the electronics circuitry
 that is required for the system.”). After the hearing, Cham-
 berlain argued that its expert had demonstrated that “the
 circuitry in the wall station of the ’404 Accused Products is
 part of the claimed “movable barrier operator” because it
 “receives, processes, and effects commands, including com-
 mands to close the garage door.” J.A. 13835.
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85     Page: 14    Filed: 04/27/2023

 14                           CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC

 Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
 Cir. 2012). Moreover, as there is no contrary indication in
 the patent, the “movable barrier operator” limitation may
 be satisfied by multiple discrete components functioning
 together. See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
 Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Alt-
 hough the sole embodiment described in the specification
 depicts a unitary structure, the mere depiction of a struc-
 tural claim feature as unitary in an embodiment, without
 more, does not mandate that the structural limitation be
 unitary.”) (internal citation omitted). The applicability of
 this default rule is confirmed by the language of the claim,
 which describes the “movable barrier operator” as “com-
 prise[d]” of functional components – a processor and con-
 nections to other components in the broader movable
 barrier system.
      The only support the ALJ identified for her narrow
 claim construction was an embodiment in the specification,
 in which the “movable barrier operator” is, indeed, the
 “head unit.” ’404 patent at 5:38 & Fig. 1. But it would be
 apparent to anyone skilled in the art that this embodiment,
 which is a garage door opener, is not limiting but illustra-
 tive, as the patent teaches movable barrier systems that
 are not even garage door systems. See Phillips v. AWH
 Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]lthough the
 specification often describes very specific embodiments of
 the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confin-
 ing the claims to those embodiments.”); ’404 patent at
 12:13–17 (“[A]lthough the described embodiment included
 a garage door, various types of movable barrier systems
 can employ these teachings, for example, swinging gates,
 rolling gates, rising gates, and the like.”). In fact, in her
 original claim construction order, the ALJ correctly ob-
 served that this very same embodiment was exemplary.
 See J.A. 26.
     Therefore, we conclude, as the ALJ did originally, that
 the correct construction of “movable barrier operator” as
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 15   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                          15

 used in the ’404 patent is its plain and ordinary meaning,
 which is not limited to a single, discrete physical assembly
 or housing, and is not limited to just a head unit. On re-
 mand, the Commission will need to apply the correct claim
 construction to determine whether the ’404 Accused Prod-
 ucts contain a “movable barrier operator.”
      The ALJ’s incorrect construction of “movable barrier
 operator” affected her entire infringement analysis, with
 respect to both the ’404 Original Products and the ’404 Al-
 ternative Products. 2 Because the Commission adopted the
 ALJ’s findings and conclusions, its analysis is likewise in-
 fected by the erroneous claim construction. On remand,
 therefore, the Commission will need to revisit the entirety
 of its evaluation of the ’404 infringement issue.
     We reach this conclusion as to the proper scope of the
 remand for several reasons. First, the ALJ’s incorrect con-
 struction of “movable barrier operator” led her to reject
 Chamberlain’s contention that the Wi-Fi receiver located
 in the wall station of the ’404 Accused Products constitutes
 a “wireless communication system connection” meeting el-
 ement [b]. See J.A. 83 (ALJ acknowledging “[t]here is . . .
 no dispute that the 404 Accused Products (with the excep-
 tion of the Mighty Mule MM9333H and MM9333HA) have
 wireless communication system connections in their wall
 stations in the form of Wi-Fi receivers” but nonetheless

     2   Both Chamberlain and Nortek argue, as alterna-
 tives to their preferred dispositions (reversal and affir-
 mance, respectively), that the case should be remanded for
 further proceedings with respect to whether the ’404 Ac-
 cused Products infringe. We agree this is the appropriate
 outcome here. See generally Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742
 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (noting we do not “sit to
 review what the Commission has not decided”).
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85      Page: 16     Filed: 04/27/2023

 16                            CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.    v. ITC

 finding these connections cannot satisfy element [b] since
 they are not in head units). 3
     Second, the ALJ relied on her incorrect construction to
 reject Chamberlain’s argument that “a button on a wall
 station in isolation qualifies as the claimed ‘local wired con-
 nection.’” J.A. 87. The ALJ’s reasoning makes clear it was
 based on the narrow construction of “movable barrier oper-
 ator” we have now rejected. See id. (“While such a button
 connects to the ‘movable barrier operator’ (i.e., head unit)
 via a set of wires running from the wall station, the button
 itself is not a ‘local wired connection’ that resides, at least
 in part, in a ‘movable barrier operator’ (i.e., head unit) of a
 404 Accused Product, as required by claim 11[b].”).
      Third, the ALJ’s determination that the “button” ver-
 sion of Chamberlain’s local wired connection theory of in-
 fringement was forfeited was also tainted by the ALJ’s
 erroneous claim construction. In its pre-hearing brief,
 Chamberlain identified the “local wired connection” in the
 ’404 Accused Products as the “communication connections
 with a wall station.” J.A. 10619. In its post-hearing brief,
 Chamberlain instead identified only “a button on the wall
 station” as the accused “local wired connection.” J.A.
 13840-41. The ALJ’s conclusion that these were materially
 distinct theories of infringement – and hence Chamberlain
 had abandoned its original theory and was trying to replace
 it, in an untimely manner, with a new post-hearing theory
 – was intertwined with her incorrect claim construction,
 which mandated that the movable barrier operator be

      3  With the revival of Chamberlain’s Wi-Fi theory of
 infringement, the Commission will need to reevaluate if
 the LDCO850 and LDCO850A are representative of the
 Mighty Mule MM9333H and MM9333HA products. See
 J.A. 111-16.
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 17   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                           17

 located solely in the head unit, and not (even in part) in the
 wall station. 4

     4   This relationship is evident, we believe, from the
 ALJ’s handling of disputes relating to the opinions of
 Chamberlain’s expert, Dr. Subramanian. After the merits
 hearing, but before the issuance of the Initial Determina-
 tion, Nortek moved to strike the purportedly new infringe-
 ment theory Dr. Subramanian had advocated at the
 hearing, where he had opined that the “movable barrier op-
 erator” included components spread across both the head
 unit and the wall station. The ALJ denied the motion,
 firmly stating that her claim construction order had al-
 ready “explicitly rejected Nortek’s own attempted construc-
 tion of a ‘movable barrier operator’ as confined to a head
 unit,” adding “[i]t is difficult to understand why Nortek
 made such an obviously unsupported Motion to strike tes-
 timony when the motion is clearly wrong in its assertions.”
 J.A. 14269-70. The motion lacked merit because, at that
 point in the proceedings, the ALJ’s operative construction
 expressly did not require that the movable barrier operator
 had to be located in the head unit. See J.A. 26. Later, how-
 ever, in the Initial Determination, the ALJ changed her
 construction to require the movable barrier operator to be
 in the head unit, and then held: “Dr. Subramanian’s refer-
 ence to a wall station ‘button’ as a ‘local wired connection’
 in the context of element[b] of claim 11 was based on a
 clearly erroneous interpretation of the Markman Order’s
 guidance on ‘movable barrier operator,’ as discussed
 above.” J.A. 85. Had the ALJ adhered to her earlier, cor-
 rect “plain and ordinary” meaning construction of movable
 barrier operator, she may have rejected the contention that
 the “button” theory was new and untimely, just as she had
 previously rejected Nortek’s closely-related motion to
 strike.
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85     Page: 18    Filed: 04/27/2023

 18                           CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC

     Accordingly, we vacate and remand the portion of the
 Commission’s Final Determination of April 22, 2020 find-
 ing that the ’404 Accused Products do not infringe. On re-
 mand, the Commission must evaluate infringement based
 on the proper construction of “movable barrier operator.”
                              C
     Nortek appeals the Commission’s conclusion that the
 obstacle detector described in the ’223 patent may “oper-
 ate” even when it is turned off and unable to perform any
 function. In particular, Nortek faults the Commission for
 applying a new, incorrect claim construction of “operates.”
 We disagree. Instead, we hold that the Commission cor-
 rectly construed “operates” according to its plain and ordi-
 nary meaning and, accordingly, made no error in
 concluding that the asserted claims of the ’223 patent do
 not require any obstacle-detection functionality in the low-
 energy operating mode.
      The ’223 patent teaches that an obstacle detector may
 not be functional in all operational modes. See ’223 patent
 at 10:13-16 (“[A] photobeam-based obstacle detector . . . can
 be configured to permit reduction of the energization cycle
 and/or complete powering down to accomplish a reduced en-
 ergy consumption mode of operation.”) (emphasis added).
 We have been provided no persuasive reason why a person
 of ordinary skill would read the ’223 patent claims to ex-
 clude this embodiment. To the contrary, the intrinsic evi-
 dence is entirely consistent with the Commission’s
 construction of “operates” – which is the same plain and
 ordinary meaning construction the ALJ had initially
 adopted in her claim construction order – “which does not
 require that the obstacle detector continue to function or
 detect objects in its lower-energy state.” J.A. 360. We find
 no error in the Commission’s conclusion that the ALJ’s In-
 itial Determination of non-infringement had to be reversed
 “because it misapplies the plain meaning of ‘operates’ in
 the context of the ’223 patent.” Id.
Case: 20-1965    Document: 85       Page: 19   Filed: 04/27/2023

 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC                           19

     Nortek further argues that the Commission violated
 the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because it did
 not provide Nortek adequate notice of, and a chance to re-
 spond to, the Commission’s construction of “operates.” See
 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)(3), (c), 556(d). Parties to a Commission
 proceeding, just like parties to an inter partes review before
 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, are entitled to notice
 and an opportunity to respond before the agency adopts a
 construction of a term that differs from a construction to
 which the parties had agreed. See Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel
 Corp., 6 F.4th 1256, 1262-63 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     Here, the Commission complied with the APA. The
 parties themselves put the meaning of “operates” into dis-
 pute. Chamberlain, in its petition requesting Commission
 review, wrote that “[t]he ALJ’s finding that the ’223 Ac-
 cused Products do not infringe claims 1 and 21 of the ’223
 patent is based on a single legal error: an erroneous[ly] ap-
 plied construction of the term ‘operates.’” J.A. 15123.
 Nortek responded by arguing that “Chamberlain’s pro-
 posed construction of ‘operates’ as ‘is energized’ is overly
 broad and is inconsistent with the specification and the
 claims.” J.A. 15344. “Operates” was not presented to the
 Commission as an agreed-upon term but, instead, as one
 whose proper construction was disputed. Both parties had
 notice of the legal proposition that an agency “may adopt a
 claim construction of a disputed term that neither party
 proposes without running afoul of the APA.” Qualcomm, 6
 F.4th at 1262. Both parties’ views on the proper construc-
 tion were heard. Accordingly, there was no APA violation.
     Other than the Commission’s construction of “oper-
 ates,” Nortek does not otherwise challenge the Commis-
 sion’s infringement evaluation. Because we agree with the
 Commission’s claim construction, we affirm the Commis-
 sion’s conclusion that “the obstacle detector in each ’223 Ac-
 cused Product ‘operates’ in both energy modes” as required
 by the asserted claims of the ’223 patent. J.A. 360. The
Case: 20-1965   Document: 85      Page: 20   Filed: 04/27/2023

 20                          CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC.   v. ITC

 Commission’s determination that the ’223 Accused Prod-
 ucts infringe is affirmed.
                             IV
     We have considered both parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. Thus, for the foregoing rea-
 sons, we affirm in part and vacate in part the Commission’s
 Final Determinations and remand for further proceedings
 consistent with this opinion.
      AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND
                  REMANDED
                           COSTS
 Costs assessed against Nortek.