Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 1 of 10 --

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 2
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: 2 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 2 of 10 --

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: 3 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 3 of 10 --

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 4
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: 4 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 4 of 10 --

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: 5 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 5 of 10 --

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 6
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: 6 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 6 of 10 --

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: 7 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 7 of 10 --

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 8
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: 8 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 8 of 10 --

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: 9 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 9 of 10 --

APPLE INC. v. SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 10
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
Case: 24-1624 Document: 44 Page: 10 Filed: 12/19/2025

-- 10 of 10 --