Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

Opinion

Case: 24-1352 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

February 23, 2026

ERRATA ______________________

Appeal No. 2024-1352

APPLE INC., Appellant

v.

SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Appellee

______________________

Decided: January 21, 2026 Nonprecedential Opinion ______________________

Please make the following changes: On page 10, lines 6–7, the phrase “public carrier net- work” should be changed to “public carrier networks.” On page 10, line 9, the citation to “J.A. 2922–3004” should be changed to “J.A. 2992–3004.” On page 10, line 12, the pe- riod should be moved outside of the parenthesis. As a re- sult of these changes, the sentence should read: “See J.A. 2882–83, J.A. 2892–2901 (Petition, citing teachings of Rau- tiola and Sainton for claim limitation [1.5], reciting “switching between one or more networks,” and claim 2, Case: 24-1352 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2026

reciting “switch dynamically between local networks and public carrier networks.”); J.A. 2965–66 (Patent Owner Re- sponse, proposing claim construction for “dynamic” as used in both claim limitation [1.9]’s “dynamic conversion” and claim 2’s “switch dynamically”); J.A. 2992–3004 (Patent Owner Response, addressing Apple’s arguments regarding claim limitations [1.5] and [1.9] and claim 2, including Ap- ple’s reliance on Sainton).” On page 11, line 8, the phrase “the ’968 patent” should be changed to “the ’936 patent.” As a result, the sentence should read: “Finding all elements of issue preclusion sat- isfied, we hold claim 1 of the ’936 patent unpatentable.” On page 11, line 10, the phrase “the ’968 patent” should be changed to “the ’936 patent.” As a result, the sentence should read: “The Board’s decision as to the patentability of the dependent claims of the ’936 patent rested entirely on its conclusion that claim 1 was not unpatentable.” On page 13, lines 28–29, the phrase “the ’729 patent” should be changed to “the ’739 patent.” As a result, the sentence should read: “Because the Board found the claims of the ’739 patent unpatentable under a construction that specifies “without the need for user intervention,” our con- clusion here does not disturb our finding on issue preclu- sion.” On page 14, lines 1–2, the reference to “the ’968 patent” should be changed to “the ’936 patent.” As a result, the sentence should read: “For the reasons stated above, we re- verse the Board’s judgment regarding claim 1 of the ’936 patent.”