R.nnehushtan Trust Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
J OHN L. N ORTH , Taylor Duma LLP, Atlanta, GA, ar-
gued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by P ETER M.
J ONES , Atlanta, GA; ROBERT M. HARKINS , J R., 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 L AURA E. P OWELL , REID
Case: 24-1806 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

R. N NEHUSHTAN TRUST LTD. v. APPLE INC. 2
WHITAKER ; K YLE E DWARDS 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: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

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
Case: 24-1806 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 3 of 3 --