Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

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Nonprecedential Opinion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: 1 Filed: 02/23/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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.”
Case: 24-1352 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2026

-- 2 of 2 --