R.N Nehushtan Trust Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 24-1806
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-1806 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

R.N NEHUSHTAN TRUST LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2024-1806 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-01832-WHO, Judge William H. Orrick, III. ______________________

Decided: January 14, 2026 ______________________

JOHN L. NORTH, Taylor Duma LLP, Atlanta, GA, ar- gued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PETER M. JONES, Atlanta, GA; ROBERT M. HARKINS, JR., Cherian LLP, Berkeley, CA; JAMES MICHAEL WOODS, Washington, DC.

BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defend- ant-appellee. Also represented by LAURA E. POWELL, REID Case: 24-1806 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026

WHITAKER; KYLE EDWARDS HAUGH, San Francisco, CA; MARK D. SELWYN, Palo Alto, CA. ______________________

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Appellant R.N. Nehushtan Trust, Ltd. (RNN) brought this patent infringement suit against Appellee Apple Inc. (Apple) in the Northern District of California. RNN owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,002 (the ’002 patent) and 9,635,544 (the ’544 patent), which are directed to improvements in cellular communication device security. Specifically, to bet- ter secure a setting wherein a cellular device’s data may be read or edited, called “data mode,” the patents disclose an “access restrictor to restrict use of said . . . mode in accord- ance with a device unique security setting [(DUSS)].” J.A. 3419, 4:1–3 (’002 patent). This lock-and-key relation- ship is implicated in all claims asserted against Apple, whom RNN accuses of using DUSS validation during cer- tain device updates and downloads. The district court granted summary judgment in Apple’s favor with respect to all claims. It did so because it reasoned that the patents required the DUSS be sufficient to unlock data mode, a re- quirement not satisfied by the accused features in Apple’s products. RNN appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). The district court’s claim constructions, which are un- challenged, are dispositive. Under those constructions, the DUSS must “grant[ ] access to a data mode.” J.A. 38. Look- ing at the language of both patents, we agree with the dis- trict court that the claimed DUSS itself unlocks data mode and is not, as RNN argues, one of many components in- volved in triggering data mode. And we agree that this un- derstanding is consistent with the patents’ language, which establishes a unique relationship between DUSS validation and entry into data mode. See, e.g., J.A. 3422, Case: 24-1806 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026

R.N NEHUSHTAN TRUST LTD. v. APPLE INC. 3

9:20–22 (“[T]he data mode can only successfully be entered upon correct use of the device unique security setting, and not otherwise.” (emphasis added)). This is not, contrary to RNN’s assertions, an artificial narrowing of the claim lan- guage. Given RNN does not dispute that the accused fea- tures of Apple’s products cannot, in isolation, unlock data mode—as we find the patent language requires—summary judgment of noninfringement was warranted. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. Because this ground for affirmance resolves the dispute between the parties regarding all asserted claims, we do not need to reach the district court’s alternative grounds for granting summary judgment. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wal- let LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2022). AFFIRMED