Mph Technologies Oy v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1069
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv-05935-TLT,
Judge Trina L. Thompson.
______________________
Decided: August 3, 2026
______________________
D EREK L. SHAFFER, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sulli-
van, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
Also represented by STEVEN CHERNY , P ATRICK D ANIEL
CURRAN, Boston, MA; CHRISTOPHER SABBAGH , Houston,
TX.; BRIAN ERIK H AAN, J AMES D ANIEL MITCHELL , D AVID J.
SHEIKH , Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL.
BRIAN ROBERT MATSUI, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also rep-
resented by SETH W. L LOYD, Washington, DC; ALEXANDRA
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 1 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 2
M. AVVOCATO, New York, NY; RICHARD H UNG, San Fran-
cisco, CA; ROSE S. L EE , RYAN J. MALLOY , BITA RAHEBI, Los
Angeles, CA.
______________________
Before L OURIE, H UGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
STOLL , Circuit Judge.
MPH Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit
against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, accusing Apple of in-
fringing various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,346,949;
9,762,397; 9,712,494; 9,712,502; and 9,838,362 (collec-
tively, the “’949 patent family”); as well as U.S. Patent
No. 7,937,581. At claim construction, the district court
(1) construed the “secure” terms in the asserted claims of
the ’949 patent family as limited to the IPSec protocol and
(2) construed the term “unique identity” of the ’949 patent
family as limited to SPI values, which are specific to the
IPSec protocol. The district court also held claims 6, 7,
and 8 in the ’581 patent indefinite. Following claim con-
struction, the parties stipulated to judgment of nonin-
fringement of the ’949 patent family and invalidity of the
’581 patent.
First, MPH appeals the district court’s constructions of
the ’949 patent family’s “secure” terms as requiring the IP-
Sec protocol and the ’949 patent family’s “unique identity”
term as limited to SPI values specific to the IPSec protocol.
We hold that the disputed terms are not limited to the IP-
Sec protocol. Accordingly, we reject the district court’s
claim construction, vacate the stipulated judgment of non-
infringement, and remand.
Second, MPH appeals the district court’s determina-
tion that the last limitation relating to “the secure connec-
tion” in claim 1 of the ’581 patent is indefinite. We hold
that a skilled artisan would understand the scope of “es-
tablishing a secure connection” with reasonable certainty,
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 2 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 3
and we therefore reverse that determination, vacate the
stipulated judgment of invalidity, and remand.
BACKGROUND
I
A
The ’949 patent is entitled “Method and System for
Sending a Message Through a Secure Connection.” U.S.
Patent No. 8,346,949 Title.1 The specification notes the in-
vention is “intended to secure connections in telecommuni-
cation networks.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 7–8. The technical
background identifies a problem with the known methods
and systems for securing connections between de-
vices: they were “designed for static connections.” Id.
at col. 4 l. 28. It notes that while “IP security protocols (IP-
Sec) provide[] the capability to secure communications be-
tween arbitrary hosts,” “[s]tandard IPSec does not work
well” when one of the connected devices is a mobile termi-
nal that “changes its network point of attachment fre-
quently.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 42–43, col. 4 ll. 37–50. Thus, “the
object of the invention is to forward secure messages in a
way that enables changes to be made in the secure connec-
tion.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 21–23.
The summary of the invention explains that “[t]he
method and system of the invention enable secure forward-
ing of a message from a first computer to a second com-
puter,” noting that “[p]referably, the first computer
processes the formed message using a security protocol.”
Id. at col. 6 ll. 27–46. It then further specifies that “[p]ref-
erably, the secure message is formed by making use of the
1 The ’949 patent is representative of the issues on
appeal that pertain to the ’949 patent family, so this opin-
ion will accordingly cite to the claims and specification of
the ’949 patent.
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 3 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 3 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 4
IPSec protocols, whereby the secure message is formed by
using an IPsec connection between the first computer and
the intermediate computer.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 64–67. It goes
on to explain that “[a]n essential idea of the invention is to
use the standard protocol (IPSec) between the intermediate
computer and the second computer and an ‘enhanced IPSec
protocol’ between the first computer and the intermediate
computer.” Id. at col. 7 ll. 29–32. But it then highlights
that “[t]here are, however, several other control protocols
that could conceivably be used between the first and the
intermediate computer,” and “[t]he invention is not re-
stricted to the details of the figures and accompanying text,
or any existing protocols, such as the currently standard-
ised IPSec.” Id. at col. 9 ll. 26–33.
Claim 1 of the ’949 patent, representative on appeal,
recites:
1. A method for secure forwarding of a message
from a first computer to a second computer using a
secure connection via an intermediate computer in
a telecommunication network, comprising:
the first computer and the second computer negoti-
ating and exchanging keys with one another, by the
first and second computer, according to a key ex-
change protocol to establish the secure connection
between the first computer and the second com-
puter via the intermediate computer,
the secure connection having a source address of
the first computer as a first end point and a desti-
nation address of the second computer as a second
end point of the secure connection,
in the first computer, forming a secure message, in
the first computer, by giving the secure message a
first unique identity and a first destination address
to the intermediate computer,
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 4 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 4 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 5
sending the secure message, using the secure con-
nection, containing the first unique identity and
the first destination address from the first com-
puter to the intermediate computer, the intermedi-
ate computer receiving the secure message and
performing a translation by using the first unique
identity to find a second destination address to the
second computer, the intermediate computer sub-
stituting the first destination address with the sec-
ond destination. [sic] address to the second
computer,
the intermediate computer substituting, at the in-
termediate computer, the first unique identity with
a second unique identity of the secure connection,
and
the intermediate computer forwarding, at the in-
termediate computer, the secure message with the
second destination address and the second unique
identity to the second computer in the secure con-
nection.
Id. at col. 22 ll. 6–39 (emphases added to “secure” and
“unique identity” terms). Dependent claims 2 and 8, also
relevant to the issues on appeal, recite:
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the method fur-
ther comprises forming the secure message by us-
ing an IPSec connection between the first computer
and the second computer.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the method fur-
ther comprises the IPSec connection being one or
more security associations (SA) and the unique
identity being one or more [Security Parameters
Index (SPI)] values.
Id. at col. 22 ll. 40–43, col. 23 ll. 1–4 (emphases added to
terms relevant to claim differentiation argument).
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 5 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 5 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 6
B
The ’581 patent is entitled “Method and Network for
Ensuring Secure Forwarding of Messages.” U.S. Patent
No. 7,937,581 Title. It is an invention “intended to secure
mobile connections in telecommunication networks” using
IPSec connections. Id. at col. 1 ll. 15–17. The technical
background highlights that a “problem with standard IP-
Sec tunnel end points are [sic] that they are fixed.” Id.
at col. 4 ll. 36–37. The invention purports to solve this
problem by allowing “an existing IPSec tunnel endpoint
[to] be moved . . . from one point of attachment to another.”
Id. at col. 7 ll. 28–30. [J.A. 175]
MPH asserted that Apple infringed claims 6, 7, and 8
of the ’581 patent. Each of claims 6, 7, and 8 depend from
claim 1 of the ’581 patent, which recites:
1. A method for ensuring secure forwarding of a
message in a telecommunication network, having
at least one mobile terminal and another terminal
and a security gateway therebetween, the method
comprising:
[1.a] establishing a secure connection having a first
address of the mobile terminal as a first end-point
and a gateway address of the security gateway as a
second end-point,
[1.b] the mobile terminal changing from the first
address to a second address,
[1.c] while at the second address, the mobile termi-
nal sending a request message to the gateway ad-
dress of the security gateway to request the
security gateway to change the secure connection
to be defined between the second address and the
gateway address of the security gateway,
[1.d] in response to the request message from the
mobile terminal, the security gateway changing an
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 6 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 6 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 7
address definition of the secure connection from the
first address to the second address, and
[1.e] the mobile terminal sending a secure message
in the secure connection from the second address of
the mobile terminal to the other terminal via the se-
curity gateway.
Id. at col. 10 l. 50–col. 11 l. 3 (emphases added to limita-
tions relating to indefiniteness).
II
MPH asserted the ’949 patent family against Apple’s
secure messaging services, and it asserted the ’581 patent
against Apple’s virtual private network offerings. Relevant
to this appeal, at claim construction, the parties disputed
“unique identity” and the “secure” terms of the ’949 patent
family and the “establishing a secure connection” term of
the ’581 patent.
As to the disputed “secure” terms of the ’949 patent
family, MPH proposed the district court construe the “se-
cure” terms in claim 1 of the ’949 patent to include any se-
curity protocol. See MPH Techs. Oy v. Apple, Inc., No. 18-
cv-05935-TLT, 2024 WL 4603055, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 3, 2024) (“Claim Construction Order”). For its part,
Apple sought a narrower construction, asserting that the
term “secure” required use of the IPSec protocol. See id.
The district court agreed with Apple, construing “secure”
to require use of the IPSec protocol. Id. at *2–4. In so rul-
ing, the district court addressed MPH’s argument that, un-
der the doctrine of claim differentiation, IPSec should not
be read into claim 1 since other asserted claims “expressly
refer[red] to IPSec.” Id. at *3. The district court explained
that claim differentiation is not a “hard and fast rule” but
rather “a presumption that will be overcome when the spec-
ification or prosecution history dictates a contrary con-
struction.” Id. (quoting GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 7 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 7 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 8
1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The district court also high-
lighted various statements in the specification that sup-
ported its construction, such as the fact that “the term
[IPSec] appears nearly 200 times in the ’949 patent[],” id.,
and the statement that “[a]n essential idea of the invention
is to use the standard protocol (IPSec),” id. (alteration in
original) (quoting ’949 patent col. 7 ll. 29–30). Then, relat-
edly, the district court construed “unique identity” as lim-
ited to SPI values, which are specific to the IPSec protocol.
Id. at *4.
Turning to the ’581 patent, the district court held limi-
tation 1.e—“the mobile terminal sending a secure message
in the secure connection from the second address of the mo-
bile terminal to the other terminal via the security gate-
way”—indefinite. Id. at *9. The district court determined
the term “secure connection” in limitation 1.e lacked ante-
cedent basis because “[t]he first ‘secure connection’ [in lim-
itation 1.a] is between ‘a first address of the mobile
terminal’ and ‘a gateway address[,]’ [b]ut the second ‘secure
connection’ [in limitation 1.e] is between ‘the second ad-
dress of the mobile terminal’ and ‘the other terminal.’” Id.
(internal citation omitted) (quoting ’581 patent col. 10
ll. 54–56, col. 11 ll. 1–3). The district court read the claim
as lacking “internal consistency” and declined to “re-write
claim language to make it internally consistent.” MPH
Techs. Oy v. Apple, Inc., No. 18-cv-05935-TL, 2024 WL
4603053, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024) (“Amending Or-
der”).
Based on the district court’s constructions of “unique
identity” and the “secure” terms in the ’949 patent family,
the parties stipulated to judgment of noninfringement of
the asserted claims of the ’949 patent family. And based
on the district court’s holding of indefiniteness of claim 1 of
the ’581 patent, the parties stipulated to judgment of inva-
lidity of the asserted claims of the ’581 patent.
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 8 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 8 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 9
MPH appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
MPH challenges the district court’s constructions of the
“secure” terms (and relatedly the construction of “unique
identity”) in the ’949 patent family. MPH also challenges
the district court’s determination that the term “establish-
ing a secure connection” in claim 1 of the ’581 patent is in-
definite. We discuss each in turn.
I
We first turn to MPH’s argument that the district court
erred in construing the “secure” terms in the ’949 patent
family as limited to IPSec protocol, an issue we review de
novo when the district court’s claim construction reasoning
involved only intrinsic evidence. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm
Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In light of the
’949 patent’s specification, this is a very close issue. After
a full review of the relevant intrinsic evidence, however, we
are convinced that the construction that most comfortably
aligns with the specification and other intrinsic evidence
does not limit the “secure” terms to the IPSec protocol.
Starting with the claims themselves, independent
claim 1 of the ’949 patent merely recites “secure forward-
ing,” “secure connection,” and “secure message.” See
’949 patent col. 22 ll. 6–39. On their face, these “secure”
terms in claim 1 are broad and not limited to IPSec. And
turning to the dependent claims, they are more confirma-
tory of this broad understanding of the claim language
than contradictory. For example, dependent claim 2 re-
cites: “[t]he method of claim 1 wherein the method further
comprises forming the secure message by using an IPSec
connection between the first computer and the second com-
puter.” Id. at col. 22 ll. 40–43 (emphasis added). While it
is true, as Apple points out, that dependent claim 8 of the
’949 patent refers to “the IPSec connection” and therefore
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 9 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 9 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 10
might favor reading the IPSec protocol into independent
claim 1, id. at col. 23 l. 2, we agree with MPH that the use
of “the IPSec connection” in claim 8 is more likely the result
of a scrivener error during prosecution, as claim 8 initially
depended from claim 2. See MPH Techs. Oy’s Reply Claim
Construction Br., Dkt. Nos. 99-2 at 4–5, 99-3 at 3, 5, MPH
Techs. Oy v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-05935-TLT (N.D. Cal.
Nov. 16, 2023).
We next turn to the specification, which contains many
touch points relating to the meaning of “secure.” “The
claims, of course, do not stand alone.” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Thus, “[c]laims must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are a part.” Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (citation
omitted), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Indeed, “the specifica-
tion ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis’” and “is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citation omit-
ted). Because “the specification necessarily informs the
proper construction of the claims,” we have recognized that
“the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or
disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.” Id. at 1316; see
also Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In such circumstances, “the
inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the in-
ventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is re-
garded as dispositive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citation
omitted). While it is a close question, we ultimately con-
clude the ’949 patent’s specification does not compel nar-
rowing “secure” to IPSec specifically.
The specification does not expressly define “secure” as
requiring IPSec. It certainly comes close to doing so, but
other statements render this possible definition unclear.
In favor of a narrow definition, as the district court noted,
the specification states that “[a]n essential idea of the in-
vention is to use the standard protocol (IPSec).” Claim
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 10 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 10 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 11
Construction Order, 2024 WL 4603055, at *3 (alteration in
original) (quoting ’949 patent col. 7 ll. 29–30). The specifi-
cation also explains that “[t]he system of the invention . . .
is characterized in that the first and the second computers
have means to perform IPSec processing.” ’949 patent
col. 8 ll. 32–36. And the description of the invention states
that “an IPSec connection is shared by the first computer
and the second computer.” Id. at col. 10 ll. 11–12.
But while these portions of the specification might in a
vacuum suggest that the claimed “secure” terms require
IPSec, other parts of the specification make clear that the
inventors did not intend to so limit the meaning of “secure.”
For example, the end of the summary of the invention ex-
plains that “[t]he invention is not restricted to the details
of the figures and accompanying text, or any existing pro-
tocols, such as the currently standardised IPSec.” Id.
at col. 9 ll. 31–33 (emphasis added). Similarly, when dis-
cussing the use of IPSec in the invention, the specification
recognizes that “[t]here are, however, several other control
protocols that could conceivably be used between the first
and the intermediate computer.” Id. at col. 9 ll. 26–28.
Even further, the specification indicates that “[p]referably,
the secure message is formed by making use of the IPSec
protocols, whereby the secure message is formed by using
an IPsec connection between the first computer and the im-
mediate computer.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 64–67 (emphasis
added). And the title, abstract, technical field, and object
of the invention make no mention of IPSec, further under-
mining the conclusion that IPSec is essential to the inven-
tion. Id. at Title; id. at Abstract (“The method and system
enable secure forwarding of a message . . . .”); id. at col. 1
ll. 7–8 (“The method and system of the invention are in-
tended to secure connections in telecommunication net-
works.”); id. at col. 6 ll. 17–18 (“The object of the invention
is to develop a method for forwarding secure messages be-
tween two computers . . . .”).
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 11 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 11 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 12
The district court emphasized the sheer number of
times that the specification talks about IPSec and how the
invention is intended to work with IPSec protocols. Claim
Construction Order, 2024 WL 4603055, at *3 (“As Apple
noted in the Markman hearing, the term [‘secure’] appears
nearly 200 times in the ’949 patent[]. These repeated ref-
erences to IPSec strongly support Apple’s construction.”
(citing GPNE, 830 F.3d at 1368, 1371). We do not dispute
that these references support the district court’s construc-
tion. But once the inventor expressly stated that “[t]he in-
vention is not restricted to the details of the figures and
accompanying text, or any existing protocols, such as the
currently standardised IPSec,” ’949 patent col. 9 ll. 31–33,
we cannot say that the sheer number of references to IPSec
in the specification allows us to ignore the inventor’s ex-
press language in column 9 and read an IPSec requirement
into the broad claim term “secure.” Similarly, the district
court’s reliance on GPNE here is misplaced. In GPNE, “the
specification repeatedly and exclusively use[d] the[] words
[‘pager’ and ‘pager units’] to refer to the devices [(i.e.,
nodes)] in the patented system,” thus leading the district
court to construe the claimed “nodes” as “pagers.” 830 F.3d
at 1370–71 (emphases added). Here, however, the inventor
emphasized that the invention was not restricted to IPSec,
and that IPSec is “prefer[red]” only. See, e.g., ’949 patent
col. 6 ll. 64–65; id. at col. 9 ll. 31–33.
For these reasons, we reject the district court’s con-
struction of “secure” as limited to the IPSec protocol. And
as we agree with MPH that the district court’s construction
of the ’949 patent family’s “unique identity” term as limited
to SPI values specific to the IPSec protocol rises and falls
with the district court’s construction of “secure,” we reject
the district court’s construction of “unique identity” as well.
See Oral Arg. at 7:05–7:18, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/
oral-arguments/25-1069_06012026.mp3. We accordingly
vacate the judgment of noninfringement of the ’949 patent
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 12 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 12 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 13
family and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
II
We now turn to the district court’s determination that
limitation 1.e in claim 1 of the ’581 patent is indefinite.
“[A] patent claim is indefinite if, when ‘read in light of the
specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution
history, the claim fails to inform, with reasonable cer-
tainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the inven-
tion.’” BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up) (quoting Nautilus, Inc.
v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)).
“‘Reasonable certainty’ does not require ‘absolute or math-
ematical precision.’” Id. (citation omitted). “We review a
determination of indefiniteness de novo. Determinations
about governing legal standards and about intrinsic evi-
dence are reviewed de novo, and any factual findings about
extrinsic evidence relevant to the question, such as evi-
dence about knowledge of those skilled in the art, are re-
viewed for clear error.” Id. (citations omitted).
In order to assess whether a skilled artisan would un-
derstand with reasonable certainty the meaning of “the se-
cure connection” in claim limitation 1.e, it is helpful to walk
through the elements of the claim in tandem with the spec-
ification. Figure 1 of the ’581 patent illustrates one embod-
iment of the invention:
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 13 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 13 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 14
’581 patent Fig. 1. Boxes 1, 2, and 3 represent computers,
where “computer 1 may be a client computer” and “[c]om-
puter 2 might be a security gateway for a third com-
puter 3.” Id. at col. 8 ll. 51–56.
Claim 1 begins with its preamble identifying three de-
vices in a telecommunication network: a mobile terminal,
another terminal, and a security gateway between the two
terminals. Id. at col. 10 ll. 50–53. Turning to Figure 1,
computer 1 is a mobile terminal, computer 2 is a security
gateway, and computer 3 is another terminal. Limita-
tion 1.a recites “establishing a secure connection having a
first address of the mobile terminal as a first end-point and
a gateway address of the security gateway as a second end-
point,” which is depicted in Figure 1 as the IPSec tunnel
between computers 1 and 2. Id. at col. 10 ll. 54–56 (em-
phasis added). Then limitations 1.b–1.d recite “the mobile
terminal changing from the first address to a second ad-
dress,” “the mobile terminal sending a request message to
the . . . security gateway to request the security gateway to
change the secure connection to be defined between the sec-
ond address and the gateway address,” and the security
gateway accordingly changing an address definition. Id.
at col. 10 ll. 57–67. At this point, computer 1 in Figure 1
has changed addresses, communicated that new address to
the security gateway, and the security gateway has
changed the secure connection to make computer 1’s new
address one of its endpoints.
Then, reaching limitation 1.e at issue, the limitation
recites “the mobile terminal sending a secure message in
the secure connection from the second address of the mobile
terminal to the other terminal via the security gateway.”
Id. at col. 11 ll. 1–3 (emphasis added). Turning again to
Figure 1, this last step is akin to computer 1, having now
changed addresses, sending a secure message to com-
puter 3 by sending the message through the IPSec tunnel
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 14 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 14 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 15
between computer 1 and computer 2, i.e., the mobile termi-
nal and the secure gateway, and then the message going
from computer 2 to computer 3.
Having walked through the claim step-by-step, we de-
termine “the secure connection” term in limitation 1.e is
not indefinite, as it refers to the “secure connection” as es-
tablished between the mobile terminal and the security
gateway. This plain claim language, read in light of the
specification, informs a skilled artisan of its scope. The dis-
trict court held the claim indefinite because it read the “se-
cure connections” as different between limitations 1.a
and 1.e. The district court understood “[t]he first ‘secure
connection’ [to be] between ‘a first address of the mobile
terminal’ and ‘a gateway address[,]’ [b]ut the second ‘secure
connection’ [to be] between ‘the second address of the mo-
bile terminal’ and ‘the other terminal.’” Claim Construc-
tion Order, 2024 WL 4603055, at *9 (citations omitted).
We disagree that a skilled artisan would read the claim in
such a way because, as the district court later noted, “if it
is not the same secure connection, then the solution that
the new invention is supposed to solve is not really solved.”
Amending Order, 2024 WL 4603053, at *5. We similarly
disagree with Apple’s contention that reading the secure
connection in limitation 1.e to be the same as established
in limitation 1.a “would just result in a single ‘secure con-
nection’ that has irreconcilably conflicting sets of end-
points.” Appellee’s Br. 44. When read in light of the
specification, however, the claim informs a skilled artisan
that the secure connection remains between the mobile ter-
minal and the security gateway. We accordingly reverse
the holding of indefiniteness, vacate the judgment of inva-
lidity of the ’581 patent, and remand for further proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion.
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 15 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 15 of 16 --

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. 16
CONCLUSION
We have considered Apple’s remaining arguments but
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we re-
verse, vacate, and remand.
REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to Appellant.
Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 16 Filed: 08/03/2026

-- 16 of 16 --