Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the PTAB proceeding and the underlying district court litigation.

Let me dig deeper into the district court litigation, accused products, and outcomes.

Let me verify the district court case resolutions and additional context on the patent's lineage and NPE patterns.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. The underlying dispute pits Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, a patent assertion entity (NPE/PAE), against two of the world's largest smartphone makers — Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (operating companies; Apple and Samsung are also the co-petitioners in the PTAB matter captioned Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, IPR2022-00980). Smart Mobile is not a practicing entity: it holds a patent portfolio traced to inventors Sanjay K. Rao, Sunil K. Rao, and Raman K. Rao (two brothers, then in high school/college, and their father, who prosecuted the early applications), originally assigned to IP Holdings Inc., and it monetizes the portfolio through assertion. The inventors' Texas residency was itself litigated — Samsung moved to transfer venue, and the court found Sunil and Sanjay Rao reside in the W.D. Tex. and are members of Smart Mobile, which weighed against transfer (see Smart Mobile's opposition to Samsung's §1404 motion, ECF No. 135 in 6:21-cv-00701; the Rao brothers have Texas driver's licenses and voter registration). (Sources: PTAB Mandatory Notices, IPR2022-00980 Paper 5; Unified Patents portfolio page; Docket Alarm court filings.)

Accused products and asserted patents. In the district court, Smart Mobile asserted more than 160 claims across 14 patents against Apple and Samsung, all sharing a common 1990s-priority specification describing a wireless device that a server reconfigures "dynamically." Against Apple, the accused technology includes iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch functionality — notably Multipath TCP (MPTCP) supporting Siri (and later Maps and Music), Wi-Fi Calling, Wi-Fi Assist, FaceTime, and MIMO in iPads — all characterized as "dynamically switching" between Wi-Fi and cellular. Against Samsung, the accused products are the Galaxy S, Note, J, A, and Tab series devices and the Galaxy Store platform (Patsnap litigation summary; Apple complaint, Ex. 1033 in IPR2022-00980). The patent at issue in this proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 8,761,739 B1 ("Dynamically Configurable IP Based Wireless Devices and Networks"), claims a wireless communication system comprising (1) a wireless device supporting voice and data, (2) a server, and (3) memory storing "functional instructions" that enable switching between networks, such that "the server enables dynamic conversion of the wireless device from a first function to a second function." In one line: a phone-plus-server architecture in which the device downloads "functional instruction sets" from the server to re-configure itself automatically — cell phone → cordless phone → TV remote — as it moves among home, office, and public environments. It issued June 24, 2014, was filed May 13, 2013, and claims priority to a Dec. 16, 1996 application (08/764,903) via a 1999 continuation-in-part (App. No. 09/281,739). (Sources: IPR2022-00980 FWD, Paper 35 (Sept. 26, 2023); PTAB Institution Decision, Paper 14 (Dec. 5, 2022); Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief, 6:21-cv-00603 Dkt. 47.)

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Both district court suits were filed in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright — Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00603 (filed June 11, 2021) and Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00701 (filed July 2, 2021). Venue mattered enormously: Judge Albright's Waco docket was then the nation's busiest and most plaintiff-friendly patent venue, which is precisely why a small Texas-based NPE filed there against two out-of-state technology giants. The defendants' parallel IPR campaign was the classic response. Apple and Samsung filed a coordinated set of IPRs in mid-2022 covering the family (e.g., IPR2022-00807 ('168), -00808 ('501), -00979 ('119), -00980 ('739), -00981 ('936), -00982 ('937), -01005 ('291), -01222 ('863), -01223 ('075)). In IPR2022-00980, the Board instituted on all grounds on Dec. 5, 2022 and, in a Final Written Decision authored by APJ Paul J. Korniczky (panel with APJs Jameson Lee and Hyun J. Jung), held all challenged claims (1–3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 16–18) unpatentable as obvious over Rautiola/Regnier/Sainton (Grounds 1–4) and Grube/Gillig/Cohn (Ground 5). Smart Mobile did not appeal, and the IPR certificate issued Jan. 5, 2024, cancelling the claims. Petitioners were represented by Haynes and Boone LLP (Andrew S. Ehmke, Samuel Drezdzon, Adam C. Fowles, later Angela M. Oliver, Debra Janece McComas, Laura Vu) and Fish & Richardson P.C. (W. Karl Renner, Jeremy J. Monaldo, Ayan Roy-Chowdhury); Smart Mobile by Skiermont Derby LLP (Rex Hwang, Todd Mann) and Graves & Shaw LLP (Philip J. Graves, Greer N. Shaw) — the latter two also led Smart Mobile's district court and appellate advocacy.

The case is notable on several fronts. First, it is a textbook example of the NPE-vs.-smartphone-industry assertion pattern, and of the IPR-as-defense strategy: the '980 outcome effectively gutted the '739 patent while the Waco cases were pending, and the Samsung case (6:21-cv-00701) was ultimately dismissed with prejudice in July 2024, with the parties jointly moving to vacate the claim construction order as part of settlement (Patsnap litigation summary; the parallel Apple case was likewise resolved, though I could not confirm its precise termination date from the sources retrieved). Second, the '980 decision became precedentially important collateral-estoppel fuel: in the related '936 IPR (IPR2022-00981), Apple invoked issue preclusion based on the '980 FWD, and the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, No. 2024-1352 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2026) (nonprecedential, Judge Reyna) reversed the Board and held claim 1 of the '936 patent unpatentable as substantially similar to the invalidated '739 claim, reasoning that "to conclude otherwise would allow a patentee to assert a claim substantially similar to a claim previously found unpatentable by the PTAB." Third, the broader Smart Mobile campaign generated a cluster of 2026 Federal Circuit rulings on the portfolio (including a vacate-and-remand under Axonics on U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, and a split panel affirming other claims), underscoring the market context: 1990s-priority "dynamic reconfiguration" software patents asserted broadly against near-universal smartphone features like MTPP/MPTCP and Wi-Fi/cellular handoff. A caveat: the exact disposition and date of the Apple district court case (6:21-cv-00603), and the precise Amended/Adjusted IPR certificate details, are not fully confirmed in the sources retrieved; the Samsung dismissal date (July 2024) and the IPR2022-00980 FWD/certificate dates are well sourced.

I'll research this case and its parallel district court litigation.

Let me dig into the district court litigation and related proceedings.

Now let me trace what happened after transfer and the stay motion.

Smart Mobile Technologies v. Apple / Samsung — Litigation & IPR Timeline

A note on framing: The docket number in the case metadata (IPR2022‑00980) is the PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,761,739, not a district court case. The "patent infringement litigation" is a pair of 2021 W.D. Tex. complaints filed by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC against Apple and Samsung, in which the '739 patent was one of thirteen asserted patents. Below I track the district court cases, the IPRs (including ‑00980), and the appeals that now control the posture of the litigation. Where I could not verify a fact, I say so.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021)

Sourcing gap: I could not verify the specific filing dates or content of Apple's/Samsung's answers and counterclaims (invalidity/non‑infringement). The transfer order notes only that "after responding to Smart Mobile's complaint" each defendant moved to transfer, confirming answers were filed. Treat the counterclaim details as unconfirmed.

---

2. Early Case Management, Infringement Contentions & Claim Construction Briefing (2021–2022)

• 2021‑10‑08 — Court's Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases (OGP) entered (Dkt. 18), setting the disclosure schedule.
• 2022‑01‑12 — Smart Mobile serves Preliminary Disclosure of Infringement Contentions and Priority Dates (charts against Apple), expressly reserving supplementation "in light of the Court's claim construction."
• 2022‑04‑14 — Revised OGP 4.1 adopted.
• 2022‑05‑04 — Smart Mobile serves Plaintiff's Proposed Claim Constructions (for terms identified by both sides) in the coordinated Apple and Samsung cases. Defendants serve their Opening Claim Construction Brief with the Bims Declaration.
• 2022‑06‑08 — Joint Claim Construction materials filed in the Apple case (e.g., Dkt. 48‑40).

Key point: The case was transferred and then stayed before any Markman hearing or claim‑construction order issued. I found no Markman ruling in either W.D. Tex

I'll research press coverage of this case, starting with the specific articles listed and then searching additional angles.

Now let me verify the remaining listed articles and search for additional coverage.

Let me check the roundup articles and search for additional coverage of the IPR itself.

Press and trade coverage

The most directly relevant coverage to IPR2022‑00980 comes from IPWatchdog, which reported on 2026‑01‑21 that the '980 proceeding is what gave Apple its issue‑preclusion win in the '936 appeal. Reporter Rose Esfandiari explained that "[i]n prior IPRs, specifically IPR2022‑00980 and IPR2022‑00808, Apple challenged the '739 and '501 patents," that "the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and Smart Mobile did not appeal those decisions," and that the Federal Circuit (Judge Reyna, with Judges Lourie and Chen) reversed the Board for refusing to give those unappealed outcomes preclusive effect against the substantially similar claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,472,936. The article quotes the court's rationale — "[t]o conclude otherwise would allow a patentee to assert a claim substantially similar to a claim previously found unpatentable by the PTAB" — and identifies this as the case's wider significance: an unappealed PTAB loss on one member of a patent family can now knock out sibling claims. It even notes a drafting slip in the opinion (references to "the '968 patent"). Mealey's framed the same ruling on 2026‑01‑23 as precedent that "issue preclusion barred" the PTAB from adjudicating validity at all, and a legal-analysis aggregator, ScaleJuris, went further on 2026‑01‑21, calling the decision one that "expands issue preclusion in patent IPRs" and advising practitioners to consider the order in which they file IPRs against related patents — an analytical take that goes beyond anything in the opinion itself.

The rest of the coverage tracks the appellate cluster that surrounds the '739 ruling rather than the '980 IPR itself. IPWatchdog reported on 2026‑01‑13 that a Stoll-authored panel vacated and remanded the Board's decision on U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083 (Appeal No. 24‑1419), affirming the Board's construction of "plurality of antennas" but holding that "this case falls squarely under Axonics" because Apple was never given a chance to respond to a claim construction Smart Mobile first proposed in its patent owner response; VitalLaw's IP Law Daily carried the same holding, identifying Nitika Gupta Fiorella (Fish & Richardson) for Apple and Philip Graves (Graves & Shaw) for Smart Mobile. On 2026‑03‑02, IPWatchdog reported that a Taranto-authored panel affirmed the Board's upholding of claims 2–4 and 15–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943 over Byrne/WO748 and Raleigh combinations, with Judge Dyk partially dissenting — the "split" in the headline. Then on 2026‑08‑27, IPWatchdog reported two more Stark-authored decisions (Nos. 24‑1607 and 25‑1090) affirming the Board's rejection of Apple's obviousness challenges to the '653, '946 and '075 patents on a narrow construction of "multiplexed signals," while vacating and remanding the Board's obviousness findings on certain dependent claims because the Board "fail[ed] to engage with" Smart Mobile's expert "bottlenecking" evidence — a partial APA/Administrative Procedure Act remand, not a clean win for either side.

Framing varies noticeably between outlets. Law360 led its 2026‑08‑27 coverage by saying "Smart Mobile Technologies LLC came out victorious in a set of Federal Circuit decisions Thursday," while IPWatchdog's headline ("CAFC Delivers Blow to Apple") and VitalLaw's ("Apple loses key challenges") point the same direction; all three understate that Apple obtained a vacatur-and-remand on the cross-appeal. Legal Era and IPWatchdog both supply the most useful non-legal fact for the litigation chronology: the Waco case "was later transferred," and per IPWatchdog "litigation remains pending resolution of the IPRs." A brief Legal News Feed item is the only piece that explicitly editorializes on market effect, asserting the rulings "bolster the validity of its patent portfolio, potentially strengthening its position in any future licensing negotiations" — but that piece also misattributes the '083 decision (Appeal No. 24‑1419, decided January 13, 2026) to docket 25‑1090 in the August 27 batch, so I would not rely on it.

Reported numbers, gaps, and discrepancies. I found no coverage reporting any damages figure, settlement amount, or licensing royalty in this campaign — consistent with the record, since the '739 claims were cancelled before trial and no Smart Mobile case has gone to verdict. The closest thing to a financial datapoint anywhere in the coverage is PatSnap's note of "[n]o damages amount was applicable at the appellate stage." Searches of Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, and mainstream tech press turned up nothing; coverage of this dispute is essentially confined to IPWatchdog, Law360/Mealey's, VitalLaw, and lower-quality aggregators. Two contradictions with the previously generated sections should be flagged. First, the venue: IPWatchdog's 2026‑08‑27 article says the case went to the Northern District of California, but the Federal Circuit's own 25‑1090 opinion states the case was transferred to the Central District of California in August 2023 (and VitalLaw agrees), so I would adopt C.D. Cal. and treat IPWatchdog's "Northern" as an error. Second, the earlier section's statement that the Apple W.D. Tex. case "was likewise resolved" is contradicted by the August 2026 reporting that the Apple litigation remains pending and stayed in California awaiting the IPRs. I was unable to verify, within this search, whether the four IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" items from 2022–2023 or the December 19, 2025 "Barks & Bites" column actually discuss the '739/IPR2022‑00980; the August 28, 2026 Barks & Bites column I retrieved focuses on the T-Mobile/KAIFI transfer and the CCIA amicus in Tesla v. Granite Vehicle Ventures, not Smart Mobile, so I cannot confirm it mentions this case.

Sources

• CAFC Delivers Blow to Apple in Appeal of PTAB Disputes with Smart Mobile - CAFC Delivers Blow to Apple in Appeal of PTAB Disputes with Smart Mobile
• IPWatchdog Articles Archives - Posts in IPWatchdog Articles
• Patent Litigation Archives - Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"
• CAFC Delivers Blow to Apple in Appeal of PTAB Disputes with Smart Mobile
• CAFC Delivers Blow to Apple in Appeal of PTAB Disputes with Smart Mobile - NewsBreak
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• PTAB decision vacated & remanded by federal circuit
• 24-1352-2026-01-21.pdf
• U.S. Federal Circuit Court Rulings Favor Smart Mobile Technologies in Patent Dispute with Apple
• Split Federal Circuit Upholds Smart Mobile Patent Claims Against Challenge from Apple - Split Federal Circuit Upholds Smart Mobile Patent Claims Against Challenge from Apple
• Litigation Archives - Posts in Litigation
• Government Archives - Posts in Government

I'll research the counsel representing the plaintiff(s) — Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, which is the plaintiff in the underlying district court actions and the Patent Owner in this IPR.

Let me dig into the district court docket to identify all plaintiff-side counsel of record.

Let me verify the full district court counsel list and the appellate-side representation.

I'll verify the counsel of record for the Patent Owner (the "defendant" in this proceeding) and cross-check the petitioners' side, since the metadata frames Apple/Samsung as plaintiffs and Smart Mobile as defendant.

Confirmed the Patent Owner side. Now let me verify the petitioners' counsel of record and the underlying district court defense teams.

Now let me verify Samsung's district court defense team and gather attorney background details.

Counsel of Record — Defendant / Patent Owner Side (and Cross-Reference to the Infringement Defendants)

Framing note (important). The case metadata designates Smart Mobile Technologies LLC as the "Defendant," and that is correct for the PTAB matter: in IPR2022‑00980 Smart Mobile is the Patent Owner / respondent (the party defending the patent), while Apple and Samsung are the Petitioners (the party challenging it). Both rosters are set out below, because in the underlying infringement suits the roles invert — Apple and Samsung are the defendants and Smart Mobile is the plaintiff. Where a name differs from the earlier generated sections of this case, I flag it explicitly.

---

A. Patent Owner's counsel of record in IPR2022‑00980 (the "defendant" per case metadata)

Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, Paper 5 (Aug. 12, 2022); Joint Notice of Stipulation Concerning Scheduling, Paper 27 (Aug. 1, 2023); Order Granting Pro Hac Vice Admission of Philip J. Graves and Greer N. Shaw, Paper 18 (Jan. 25, 2023); hearing/panel notices listing "For PATENT OWNER" appearances.

Roster limitations set by the Board. The Jan. 25, 2023 pro hac vice order expressly required Smart Mobile to "continue to have a registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel," and authorized Graves and Shaw to act only as back‑up counsel — a routine PTAB restriction, not a reflection on their credentials.

Correction to earlier sections. The previously generated sections name Smart Mobile's back‑up PTAB counsel as "Todd Mann." The filings consistently read "Todd Martin (Reg. No. 78,642), Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas." I treat "Todd Mann" as an error in the earlier summary.

Also on the Patent Owner team, though not of record in '980 specifically: Steven J. Udick (Skiermont Derby, Dallas) filed a pro hac vice declaration in the sibling IPR2022‑01249 stating he is "counsel for Smart Mobile Technologies LLC in the related co‑pending district court cases" (6:21‑cv‑00603 and 6:21‑cv‑00701). I found no appearance by Mr. Udick on the '980 papers themselves.

In‑house counsel: I found no in‑house attorney of record for Smart Mobile in this proceeding; Smart Mobile appears to be an NPE without a disclosed in‑house litigation function. (If any in‑house counsel participated, they are not reflected in the appearance records retrieved.)

---

B. Petitioners' counsel of record in IPR2022‑00980 (Apple / Samsung — the defendants in the underlying infringement suits)

Source: Petitioners' filings and certificates of service in '980 (e.g., Petitioner's Authorized Reply to POPR, Nov. 3, 2022; Joint Notice of Stipulation, Paper 27, Aug. 1, 2023); Panel Change Order, Feb. 23, 2023; Patent Owner's certificates of service.

---

C. Defense counsel in the underlying W.D. Tex. infringement suits (Apple and Samsung as defendants)

These are the attorneys representing the