Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), Case No. 3:23-cv-04168, is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge William Alsup. The plaintiff, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), frequently engaged in patent litigation against major technology companies over wireless communication patents. The defendant, Apple Inc., is a globally recognized multinational technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, software, and online services, including its popular iPhone, iPad, and Mac product lines. The lawsuit alleges that Apple's products and services infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, which generally covers wireless device technology enabling multichannel data transfer. Specifically, the patent addresses the architecture by which a wireless device manages simultaneous or sequential data communications across multiple channels, a core functionality found in modern smartphones, tablets, and IoT devices.

The procedural posture of this case is notable due to its venue and strong ties to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent disputes, known for its experienced judges, specific local patent rules governing litigation milestones, and a tendency to favor early dispositive motions challenging patent eligibility (e.g., Alice motions) and motions to stay cases pending inter partes review (IPR) outcomes from the USPTO. Indeed, this case is deeply intertwined with multiple IPR challenges initiated by Apple against Smart Mobile Technologies' patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083. The Federal Circuit has already issued "Vacated and Remanded" decisions in appeals arising from these IPRs, indicating ongoing validity challenges at the appellate level, which significantly impacts the district court litigation. This inter-partes review linkage highlights the modern trend in patent litigation where defendants often concurrently challenge patent validity at the PTAB.

The case is notable as an example of an NPE asserting broad wireless communication patents against a major operating company. The ongoing Federal Circuit appeals related to the validity of the asserted patents, including the '083 patent, underscore the strategic importance of parallel PTAB challenges in today's patent landscape. These proceedings shape the scope and enforceability of patents covering foundational mobile device technology. The outcomes of these appeals directly influence the viability of Smart Mobile Technologies' infringement claims in the district court.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.

Case Name: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.
Case Number: 3:23-cv-04168
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Assigned Judge: Hon. William Alsup
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083 (and potentially others, but the prompt specifically identifies this one)
Status: Ongoing

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple Inc. on August 16, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The nature of the suit is listed as "Property Rights - Patent," with a cause of "35:271 Patent Infringement."
• Specific details regarding Apple's answer, including whether it asserted counterclaims, are not readily available in public summaries without direct PACER access.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Information on significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment is not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results. Such motions are typical in patent litigation, but their filing and resolution would be found in the court's detailed docket.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of June 18, 2026, there is no public information in the search results indicating that a Markman hearing has been held or a claim construction order issued in this case. Given the filing date of August 2023, the case would likely still be in the early to mid-stages, where Markman is a future milestone.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance are detailed in the publicly available information.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case has not reached the trial stage, nor have there been any verdicts or post-trial motions as of the current date. The case is still active.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. There is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, or final judgment.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that Apple Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083. The IPR proceeding is designated as IPR2024-00233 and was filed on November 14, 2023.
  • The IPR petition was instituted on May 22, 2024. This means the PTAB agreed to review the patentability of at least some claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083.
  • The final written decision in IPR2024-00233 is currently due by May 22, 2025. This IPR proceeding could significantly impact the district court litigation, as a finding of unpatentability by the PTAB would likely lead to the dismissal of claims related to the invalidated patent in the district court case. The initiation of this IPR could also lead to a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the PTAB review.

The case is currently proceeding, with a significant parallel IPR proceeding at the PTAB that could influence its future trajectory.

Here's an identification of the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, in Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04168 in the California Northern District Court:

Plaintiff(s): Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

The following attorneys are listed in connection with the plaintiff:

• Philip Jarold Graves

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Graves & Shaw LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California (based on firm's usual location for Northern District of California cases).
  • Relevant Experience Note: Philip J. Graves is a founding partner of Graves & Shaw LLP, specializing in complex business litigation, with a focus on intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Greer Novalis Shaw

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Graves & Shaw LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Greer N. Shaw is a founding partner of Graves & Shaw LLP, with experience in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

• Paul Joseph Skiermont

  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Skiermont Derby LLP (sometimes listed as Skiermont Derby LLC).
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas (main office, but the firm has multiple offices). The firm often appears in patent cases across the US.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Paul Skiermont is a highly regarded patent litigator and a founding partner of Skiermont Derby LLP, known for representing both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent disputes.

• Steven Joseph Udick

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Skiermont Derby LLP.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas or Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Steven Udick is a partner at Skiermont Derby LLP with experience in patent litigation.

• Ryan A. Hargrave

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Skiermont Derby LLP.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas or Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Ryan Hargrave is a partner at Skiermont Derby LLP, focusing on intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Rex Hwang

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Skiermont Derby LLP.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas or Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Rex Hwang is a partner at Skiermont Derby LLP, with experience in patent litigation.

• Todd A. Martin

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Skiermont Derby LLC.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas or Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Todd Martin is a partner at Skiermont Derby LLC, practicing in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

• Mark D. Siegmund

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Law Firm Of Walt Fair, PLLC.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Mark Siegmund has experience in patent litigation, often appearing in Eastern District of Texas cases, which is a common venue for patent infringement lawsuits.

• Gregory Phillip Love

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Love Law Firm P C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Gregory Love is involved in patent and complex commercial litigation.

• Craig D. Cherry

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry, PLLC.
  • Office Location: Waco, Texas (main office).
  • Relevant Experience Note: Craig Cherry is a trial lawyer with experience in patent litigation and complex commercial disputes.

Based on a review of the docket for Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 3:23-cv-04168 in the California Northern District Court, the following counsel represent the defendant, Apple Inc.:

• Michael D. Jay (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, various offices (appears to be associated with DLA Piper LLP (US) in some filings, suggesting a transition or co-counsel arrangement). PacerMonitor lists him with both Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and DLA Piper LLP (US) in this case, and also lists "Nandan R Padmanabhan. Boies, Schiller & Flexner - Santa Monica" directly after a listing for Nandan Raghunath Padmanabhan with DLA Piper Llp (us).
  • Note: Michael Jay is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, specializing in high-stakes intellectual property and technology litigation, particularly patent and trade secret disputes.

• Amy Walters (In-house Counsel)

  • Firm: Apple Inc.
  • Note: Amy Walters was present as in-house counsel for Apple Inc. at an initial case management conference held on September 11, 2024.

• John Michael Guaragna (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP
  • Note: DLA Piper is a global law firm with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, including patent defense.

• Catherine Huang (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Catherine Huang is likely involved in the firm's intellectual property and technology practice.

• Nandan Raghunath Padmanabhan (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) and Boies, Schiller & Flexner - Santa Monica
  • Note: Padmanabhan is listed with both firms, suggesting involvement through a change of representation or co-counsel arrangement. His practice likely focuses on intellectual property disputes.

• Tiffany C. Miller (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Likely practices within DLA Piper's intellectual property group.

• Martin M. Ellison (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP US
  • Note: An attorney at DLA Piper, presumably involved in the patent litigation aspects of the case.

• Joel Chao-Iee Lin (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP
  • Note: Part of the DLA Piper team handling the defense for Apple.

• Mark D Fowler (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper US LLP - East Palo Alto
  • Note: Based in DLA Piper's Silicon Valley office, often involved in technology and patent cases.

The docket also shows several attorneys from Skiermont Derby LLP, Love Law Firm P C, and Graves & Shaw LLP, as well as Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry, PLLC and Law Firm Of Walt Fair, PLLC. However, the minute entry for the initial case management conference specifically listed "Defendant Attorney: Michael Jay" and "Plaintiff Attorney: Philip Graves". This indicates that the other listed attorneys are likely representing the plaintiff or were involved in other aspects or prior stages of the litigation (e.g., in a related case in the Western District of Texas mentioned in the PacerMonitor entry), or are pro hac vice attorneys for the plaintiff. For the purposes of identifying counsel for the defendant, I am focusing on those explicitly linked to Apple or appearing with its primary defense firms.Here is the counsel of record representing Apple Inc., the defendant in Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. (3:23-cv-04168):

• Michael D. Jay (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (Los Angeles, CA). PacerMonitor also listed DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Note: Michael Jay is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, specializing in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes, with experience representing global companies in consumer electronics and semiconductors. He was recognized by Patexia as one of the top 100 overall best-performing patent litigators in 2026.

• Amy Walters (In-house Counsel)

  • Firm: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
  • Note: Amy Walters is an attorney at Apple, and has previously represented Apple in patent infringement cases, including in a damages retrial against WiLAN Inc. Her self-reported practice areas include Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Technology & Science.

• John Michael Guaragna (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (Austin, TX)
  • Note: John Guaragna focuses on patent litigation and other technology and intellectual property disputes, with significant experience in Texas district courts, and was ranked #1 Overall and #1 Patent Litigator for Representation of Defendants by Patexia in 2026.

• Catherine Huang (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) (San Diego, CA)
  • Note: Dr. Cathy Huang represents clients in patent litigation in both United States district courts and the ITC, including multinational life sciences corporations and global consumer electronics providers.

• Nandan Raghunath Padmanabhan (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) (Los Angeles, CA). PacerMonitor also listed Boies, Schiller & Flexner - Santa Monica.
  • Note: Nandan Padmanabhan is a trial lawyer focusing on high-stakes intellectual property litigation, particularly patent and trade secret cases, with clients in consumer electronics, semiconductors, and software.

• Tiffany C. Miller (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) (San Diego, CA)
  • Note: Tiffany Miller focuses on patent litigation and counsels clients on freedom to operate and patent portfolios, with experience in cellular communications, wireless devices, and wearable technology.

• Martin M. Ellison (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Martin Ellison litigates intellectual property and complex commercial disputes with a particular emphasis on patent litigation, and has an engineering background covering various complex technologies.

• Joel Chao-Iee Lin (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) (New York, NY)
  • Note: Joel Lin has represented leading tech companies, including Apple and Samsung, in high-stakes patent litigations across a broad range of technologies such as semiconductor fabrication and wireless standards.

• Mark D. Fowler (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper US LLP (East Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Mark Fowler is a patent litigation trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience, arguing cases before the ITC, Federal Circuit, and numerous District Courts, and has represented high-profile technology companies including Apple.