R.N Nehushtan Trust Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

Background

R.N. Nehushtan Trust Ltd. alleged that Apple Inc.’s iPhones, iPads, and Watches directly infringe at least Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,642,002 and at least Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,635,544. The patents concern cellular-communication security technology intended to prevent device hacking and cloning. The asserted claims describe a device with a data mode that permits data to be read and written and settings to be changed, along with an access restrictor that limits use of that mode based on a device-unique security setting.

The trust supported its allegations with six claim charts totaling about 100 pages. The charts addressed the asserted claim requirements for Apple’s iPhones, iPads, and Watches and cited materials including user and security guides.

Apple’s Motion

Apple moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to plausibly allege direct patent infringement. Direct infringement requires the accused device to meet every element of at least one asserted patent claim.

Apple focused on three sets of requirements. First, it argued that the complaint did not show that the settings identified by the trust could be changed only while the device was in the claimed data mode. Apple pointed to personal, configuration, and technical information that it said could be changed without a cellular connection or could only be viewed rather than changed.

Second, Apple challenged the requirement that use of the data mode be disabled when an active connection ends. It argued that the trust’s allegation on this point was conclusory and unsupported. The trust responded that the claims presented alternatives: the device could either be enabled or set into data mode when the security setting was correct, or the device could disable data-mode use when the connection ended.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Apple’s arguments depended on how the patent claims should be interpreted. The asserted claims did not expressly use the word “only,” and the parties relied on the patents’ abstracts and specifications to support competing interpretations. The court described this dispute as claim construction, meaning the process of determining what patent-claim terms mean, and held that claim construction was not appropriate on a motion to dismiss.

The court found that the trust had alleged sufficiently specific facts that Apple’s devices have a data mode allowing data to be read and written and settings to be changed, including during software updates. It also found that the trust adequately alleged an access restrictor that limits use of the data mode until the device-unique security setting is received.

The court acknowledged that the trust’s allegations concerning the disabling requirement were sparse. But it found that the claim language did not clearly establish at this stage that disabling was required rather than one of the alternative actions described in the claims. Whether the accused devices actually meet the claim requirements would depend on later claim construction and evidence.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick denied Apple’s motion to dismiss. The patent-infringement case therefore proceeds beyond the pleading stage. The order did not determine whether Apple ultimately infringes either patent.