Smith Interface Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.

1
23-CV-1187 TWR (DTF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 23-CV-1187 TWR (DTF)
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
(ECF Nos. 155, 173)
Presently before the Court is Defendant Apple’s Motion to Strike (“Mot.,” ECF No.
155) Plaintiff Smith Interface’s Indirect Infringement Contentions. 	The Honorable D.
Thomas Ferraro has issued a Report and Recommendation regarding Apple’s Motion to
Strike (“R&R,” ECF No. 173) recommending that the Court grant Apple’s Motion. Having
carefully reviewed the Parties’ arguments, the record, Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report
and 	Recommendation, 	and 	the 	relevant 	law, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS Apple’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation contains a thorough and
accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying Apple’s Motion. (See
R&R at 2–3.) This Order incorporates by reference the background set forth therein.
Case 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJW Document 212 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
23-CV-1187 TWR (DTF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL STANDARD
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending
before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those
portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United
States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note
to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
ANALYSIS
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that it is
thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 	The Court therefore ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS
Apple’s Motion, without leave to amend.
In particular, the Court strikes the following from Smith Interface’s “Amended
Patent L.R. 3.1 and 3.2 Disclosures,” dated June 25, 2025:
IV. 	Patent Local Rule 3.1(d)
Patent L. R. 3.1(d) requires Smith Interface to disclose: “For each claim
which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an identification of any
direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect
infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar as
alleged direct infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role
1 	On September 5, 2025, Smith Interface filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 177.) But on December 16, 2025, Smith Interface withdrew the
Objection. (See ECF No. 210.) Thus, the Court treats Smith Interface’s Motion as if Apple’s Objection
was never filed.
Case 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJW Document 212 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
23-CV-1187 TWR (DTF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of each such party in the direct infringement must be described.” In response
to Patent L. R. 3.1(d), Smith Interface states as follows:
’754 Patent:
Based on information presently and reasonably available to Smith
Interface, 	Smith 	Interface 	contends 	that 	Apple 	knowingly 	induces 	the
infringement of the Asserted Claims by others, including resellers, retailers,
and end users of the Accused Products. Acts of direct infringement by
resellers and retailers of the Accused Products include selling and/or offering
to sell the Accused Products within the United States, importing the Accused
Products into the United States, and/or using the Accused Products in the
United States. Acts of direct infringement by end users include using the
Accused Products in the United States. Regardless of whether Apple also
committed an act of direct infringement for a given Accused Product, each
subsequent act of direct infringement by resellers, retailers, and end users of
the Accused Products constitutes a separate act of direct infringement.
Apple 	was 	informed 	at 	least 	as 	early 	as 	June 	27, 	2023 	of 	its
infringement of the ’754 Patent, when Smith Interface filed its Complaint. See
ECF No. 1. On information and belief, with knowledge of the infringing
nature of the Accused Products, Apple enters into commercial contracts,
arrangements, or other practices to encourage retailers and resellers to sell
and/or offer to sell the Accused Products within the United States, and/or
import 	the 	Accused 	Products 	into 	the 	United 	States, 	thereby 	directly
infringing the Asserted Claims.
On information and belief, with knowledge of the infringing nature of
the Accused Products, Apple provides instructions contained in, for example,
its user manuals, conducts remote software updates, and otherwise configures
the Accused Products to include infringing functionality and, thus, encourages
retailers, resellers, and end users of the Accused Products to use the Accused
Products, thereby directly infringing the Asserted Claims. On information and
belief, Apple has been supplying in or from the United States all or a
substantial portion of the components of the patented invention, in such a
manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of
the United States in a manner that would infringe the Asserted Claims if such
combination occurred within the United States.
(See ECF No. 155-6 at 6–8.)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJW Document 212 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
23-CV-1187 TWR (DTF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Ferrero’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R) in its entirety and GRANTS Defendant Apple’s Motion to Strike
Apple’s Indirect Infringement Contentions (Mot.), without leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
r'"l~ 	'!4~Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01187-TWR-BJW Document 212 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4