Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-1624
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 12/19/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

APPLE INC., Appellant

v.

SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Appellee ______________________

2024-1624 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022- 01222. ______________________

Decided: December 19, 2025 ______________________

ANGELA M. OLIVER, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Washing- ton, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW S. EHMKE, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, Dallas, TX; ADAM CARL FOWLES, Plano, TX; LAURA VU, San Francisco, CA.

GREER N. SHAW, Graves & Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by PHILIP GRAVES. ______________________ Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 12/19/2025

Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Apple Inc. (Apple) timely appeals the final written de- cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruling that claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863 (’863 patent) had not been shown to be unpatent- able as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,970,059 (Ahopelto) in combination with other references. Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, No. IPR2022-01222, 2024 WL 306227, at *18 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2024) (Final Written Decision). Because the Board adopted the parties’ agreed-upon claim construction and substantial evidence supports its conclu- sion, we affirm. BACKGROUND The ’863 patent relates to wireless enhancements to IP based cellular telephones/mobile wireless devices (CT/MD). ’863 patent, col. 1 ll. 43–45. The ’863 patent has two inde- pendent claims 1 and 14, each of which recites a system comprising a “server” and a “network switch box.” Claim 1 is representative and recites: 1. A system for controlling network Internet Proto- col (IP) based wireless devices, IP based cellular phones, networks or network switches by servers comprising: an IP enabled wireless device including a portable device or a cellular phone, said IP enabled wireless device comprising a plu- rality of antennas and ports, wherein the IP enabled wireless device is configured for voice and data communication and com- prises a plurality of transmit and receive units; a first server connected to at least one in- ternet protocol enabled network, said Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 12/19/2025

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 3

server configured with a controller in com- munication with a plurality of network de- vices; and a network switch box, wherein the network switch box is configured with a plurality of ports, wherein the network switch box is connected to at least two networks, wherein the network switch box is config- ured to transmit and receive one or more data packets between the at least two net- works. ’863 patent at claim 1 (emphases added). Apple filed an inter partes review petition challenging claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 of the ’863 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ahopelto in combination with other ref- erences. The petition relied on Ahopelto for the “server” and the “network switch box,” arguing that Ahopelto’s GPRS gateway support node (GGSN) has two functionali- ties: a server functionality disclosing the “server” and a separate routing functionality disclosing the “network switch box.” Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (Smart Mo- bile) responded, arguing that Apple relied on an imagined distinction between the two functionalities. J.A. 263 (“[T]he alleged ‘server functionality’ and ‘routing function- ality’ are not separate and distinct.”), 357–358. The Board agreed with Smart Mobile, finding that “[t]he parties agree that the claim requires a server and a network switch box as separate and distinct components” and determining that none of the challenged claims were unpatentable because Apple failed to prove that Ahopelto’s GGSN contains a server functionality that is separate and distinct from its routing functionality. Final Written Deci- sion, 2024 WL 306227, at *10. Apple appeals, arguing that (1) the Board incorrectly construed the claims to require a “server” that is logically separate and distinct from a “net- work switch box” and (2) the Board’s obviousness Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 12/19/2025

determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). DISCUSSION I. Claim Construction Apple contends that the Board erred by assuming that the parties agreed upon the claim construction requiring the claim term “server” be logically separate and distinct from the claim term “network switch box.” Apple asserts that it did not agree to that construction. See Appellant Br. 29–30 (explaining that the petition suggested both claim terms be given their plain and ordinary meaning). The record before us indicates otherwise. Apple’s un- patentability case, from the petition to an oral hearing, was all along premised on understanding the claims to require two logically separate and distinct functions. For example, Apple’s petition stated, “routing functionality [is] in addi- tion to and distinct from the server functionality for con- trolling packet forwarding.” J.A. 144 (emphasis added); see also J.A. 145 (“The GGSN routing functionality would be implemented as a logical entity on a shared plat- form . . . .”). Apple’s reply made its position clear: “the question is whether a POSITA would have found the claimed ‘server’ and ‘network switch box’ obvious from Ahopelto’s logically distinct GGSN function teachings.” J.A. 315 (third emphasis added); see also J.A. 311 (“The ev- idence demonstrates it was known that GGSNs (like those systems taught in Ahopelto) include logical components for different functions, such as ‘server’ and ‘network switch box’ functionalities.”). Apple’s expert Dr. Jensen operated un- der the same understanding of the asserted unpatentabil- ity theory. See J.A. 730 ¶ 121, J.A. 731 ¶ 123 (explaining that a skilled artisan would have recognized that GGSN’s different functionalities “would be implemented as differ- ent logical (e.g., software) entities on a shared platform.”). At the hearing, in response to the Board’s question about “the connection between what is a server and what is a Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 12/19/2025

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 5

network switch box,” Apple responded that “one entity[] can have multiple different logical elements within it.” J.A. 401–02. Smart Mobile agreed that the “server” and the “network switch box” need not be physically separate, but asserted that Apple still must establish the two as distinct components. J.A. 262–63, 357–58. Given this record, it was proper for the Board to con- clude that “[t]he parties agree that the claim requires a server and a network switch box as separate and distinct components.” Final Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *10. The Board acknowledged Smart Mobile’s concession that two claim elements need not be physically separate, id. at *8, and simply adopted the parties’ understanding that the claims require logically separate and distinct server and routing functionalities, id. at *10 (citing Apple’s “logically distinct” language). Because the parties agreed on this claim construction throughout the IPR,1 the Board did not err in evaluating Apple’s patentability challenge based on Apple’s understanding of what the claim requires. Apple argues in the alternative that the Board’s con- struction is unworkable in the context of software inven- tions. See Appellant Br. 32–33 (questioning “whether such a [logical separate-and-distinctness] requirement even makes sense in the context of device functions (e.g., soft- ware functions)”); see also id. at 36. In Apple’s view, the Board’s construction presents a difficult box-drawing

1 For this reason, Apple’s reliance on Bot M8 is mis- placed. See Appellant Br. 31, 36 (citing Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC, No. 2022-1569, 2023 WL 5606978 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2023) (non-precedential)). Here, unlike Bot M8, Apple consistently advanced a view to the Board that the claims require logically separate and distinct server and routing functions. See J.A. 144–45, 311, 315, 401–02, 730–31. Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 12/19/2025

problem—“how does one identify where one software func- tionality ends and another begins?” Id. at 33. Apple forfeited this argument by not presenting it to the Board. “We have long held that a party forfeits an ar- gument that it fails to present to the Board because that failure deprives this court of the benefit of the Board’s in- formed judgment.” Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Pats., LLC, 110 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citing In re NuVa- sive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Instead, Apple’s obviousness theory was built on an im- plicit construction of the “server” and the “network switch box” as defining logically separate and distinct functions. Apple demonstrated this understanding in three ways. First, Apple did not ask for claim construction in the peti- tion, while presuming that the claims require a logical sep- arate-and-distinctness. J.A. 144–45. Second, Apple did not raise in the reply, before the Board, its current argument against separate-and-distinctness, even after Smart Mo- bile argued that the petition did not demonstrate logically separate and distinct functions. J.A. 262–68. Rather, Ap- ple asserted that “the question is whether a POSITA would have found the claimed ‘server’ and ‘network switch box’ ob- vious from Ahopelto’s logically distinct GGSN function teachings.” J.A. 315. Third, Apple did not file a supple- mental expert declaration to support its current theory or to rebut Smart Mobile’s expert. Accordingly, we find that Apple forfeited its unworkability argument. Because we find that the Board correctly adopted the parties’ agreed-upon claim construction, we need not ad- dress Apple’s argument that as a matter of claim construc- tion, the claims do not require the logical separate-and- distinctness. See Appellant Br. 37–43. II. Obviousness Determination We next address Apple’s challenge to the Board’s obvi- ousness determination. “Obviousness is a question of law Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 12/19/2025

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 7

based on underlying facts.” Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. As- sembly Guidance Sys., Inc., 97 F.4th 882, 886 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “We review the Board’s ultimate determination of obviousness de novo and its underlying facts for substan- tial evidence.” Id. “Substantial evidence review asks ‘whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s decision. . . .’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illu- mina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Apple contends that even if the claims require logical separate-and-distinctness, Ahopelto’s GGSN discloses two functionalities—the server functionality and the routing functionality—that are separate and distinct from each other. See Appellant Br. 43. Apple offers two arguments for why the Board’s obviousness determination cannot stand. First, Apple contends that the Board applied an er- roneous standard for disclosure by looking at whether Ahopelto recites claim language verbatim or presents an architecture diagram showing various functionalities. Id. at 44–46. Second, Apple contends that the Board over- looked and conflated evidence when discounting Dr. Jen- sen’s testimony. See Appellant Br. 47–51. We find both arguments unpersuasive. Contrary to Apple’s characterization, the Board’s obviousness determi- nation was not based on a mere fact that Ahopelto did not recite claim terms verbatim or present an architecture di- agram delineating GGSN’s functions. Rather, the Board engaged in a three-tiered analysis, by first looking at dis- closures in Ahopelto, second in testimonial evidence, and third in additional cited evidence. Final Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *10–13. Apple’s unpatentability the- ory was based on Ahopelto teaching both the “server” and the “network switch box.” J.A. 139–40, 144–46. Under the first step of its analysis, the Board found that “Ahopelto does not describe expressly that its GGSN is ‘a server’ and a separate and distinct ‘network switch box.’” Final Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 12/19/2025

Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *10. Then, the Board looked at the testimonial evidence and additional cited ev- idence and concluded that Apple had not met its burden to show that a skilled artisan “would have understood that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes a server functionality and a sep- arate and distinct routing functionality.” Id. at *12. The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evi- dence. For example, nothing in Ahopelto’s specification discusses GGSN having separate and distinct functionali- ties for determining how to forward a packet based on the packet’s protocol type (Apple’s mapping of a “server”) and for connecting data packet networks to each other (Apple’s mapping of a “network switch box”).2 Final Written Deci- sion, 2024 WL 306227, at *10. Ahopelto instead describes that “[t]he routing procedure” encompasses the server functionality, namely the step of “forward[ing] the [data] packet” upon “determining the protocol type of the

2 The parties agree that the server functionality re- lates to how to forward a packet. See Appellant Br. 17, 56– 57; see Appellee Br. 10, 52. However, the parties dispute the meaning of routing functionality. Apple argues that it pertains to where to forward a packet, while Smart Mobile argues that it concerns connecting data networks. See Ap- pellee Br. 55. The Board agreed with Smart Mobile, Final Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *10, and so do we. See id. at *6–7, 10; J.A. 144 (the petition describing that Ahopelto’s routing functionality “connects data packet net- works to each other”). In any event, Apple fares no better with its position, considering that (1) Ahopelto makes no distinctions between “how to forward” and “where to for- ward” and (2) Dr. Jensen testified that “deciding where to send a packet is an essential part of routing.” Final Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *11. Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 9 Filed: 12/19/2025

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 9

encapsulated data packet.”3 J.A. 833 (Ahopelto), col. 7 ll. 4–5, 32–42; see also id., col. 8 ll. 13–14, 40–42. Because both server and routing functionalities are embedded as a part of Ahopelto’s overarching routing process, the Board reasonably found that Ahopelto’s GGSN does not meet the claim elements. Apple’s challenge to the Board’s credibility assessment of Dr. Jensen is likewise unpersuasive. “We defer to the Board’s findings concerning the credibility of expert wit- nesses.” Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The Board considered the full record—includ- ing Dr. Jensen’s inability to point to any reference that shows implementing the server functionality and the rout- ing functionality as different logical entities. Final Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *12. The Board noted that according to Dr. Jensen, “the asserted server functionality includes, or overlaps with, aspects of a ‘GGSN routing pro- cess.’” Id. at *11 (citing J.A. 709–10 ¶¶ 77, 78). And Smart Mobile’s expert, Dr. Cooklev, opined, with respect to Ahopelto, that “[a skilled artisan] would not understand an alleged ‘server functionality’ to be distinct from an alleged ‘network switch box’ when they perform the same opera- tions.” J.A. 1896–97 ¶ 37. Thus, in view of the presented evidence, the Board reasonably gave “little weight” to Ap- ple’s testimonial evidence because “the opinion fails to show that [a skilled artisan] would have understood that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes a server functionality and a

3 During oral argument, Apple agreed that the Ahopelto’s routing procedure encompasses both functional- ities. Oral Arg. at 00:38 – 00:47 (available at https://www. cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-1624_12032025.mp3) (“The prior art discloses multiple steps or functions within its overarching process, and two of those functions disclose the claim elements here.”). Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 10 Filed: 12/19/2025

separate and distinct routing functionality.” Final Written Decision, 2024 WL 306227, at *12. Lastly, the Board considered additional cited refer- ences and found that those did not alter its conclusion. Id. at *13. The Board is correct that Apple did not argue that a skilled artisan would have modified Ahopelto with the teachings of any of the additional references. Id. On ap- peal, Apple relies on the additional references to support Dr. Jensen’s testimony. See Appellant Reply Br. 16–17 (ar- guing that the Board should have given more weight to Dr. Jensen’s testimony because additional references sup- port a skilled artisan’s understanding that “different func- tions would generally be implemented as ‘different logical (e.g., software) entities.’”). But in view of the entire record, the Board reasonably found that the additional cited refer- ences did not alter its obviousness determination. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Board’s obvious- ness determination as to all challenged claims. CONCLUSION We find none of Apple’s remaining arguments persua- sive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED