Regents of the University of California v. International Trade Commission

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 1 of 6 --

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 2
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: 2 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 2 of 6 --

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 3
J AY REIZISS , McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, for intervenor Feit Electric Company, Inc. Also
represented by ALEXANDER O TT ; SIMEON P APACOSTAS ,
K ALPESH SHAH , Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff,
Chicago, IL.
HOUDA M ORAD, Office of General Counsel, United
States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
argued for appellee. Also represented by WAYNE W.
HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A. ROSENZWEIG.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO 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: 3 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 3 of 6 --

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 4
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: 4 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 4 of 6 --

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: 5 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 5 of 6 --

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. ITC 6
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
Case: 22-1521 Document: 130 Page: 6 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 6 of 6 --