The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Apple Inc.'s summary judgment victory in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by R.N Nehushtan Trust Ltd., according to a nonprecedential disposition filed Tuesday. The ruling resolves a dispute over cellular communication device security patents that began in 2022.
R.N Nehushtan Trust filed the patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting that Apple violated two of its patents related to improvements in cellular communication device security. The trust owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,002 and 9,635,544, which are directed to securing cellular devices when their data may be read or edited.
The patents at issue focus on what the technology industry calls "data mode" - a setting wherein a cellular device's data may be accessed or modified. To better secure this vulnerable state, the patents disclose an "access restrictor to restrict use of said mode in accordance with a device unique security setting," known in the patents as DUSS.
This lock-and-key relationship between the access restrictor and the device unique security setting forms the core of all claims asserted against Apple in the lawsuit. R.N Nehushtan Trust accused Apple of using DUSS validation during certain device updates and downloads, allegedly infringing on the patented security technology.
The case originated in the Northern District of California under case number 3:22-cv-01832-WHO, with Judge William H. Orrick III presiding. After litigation proceedings, the district court granted summary judgment in Apple's favor with respect to all claims brought by the trust.
According to the Federal Circuit opinion, the district court reasoned that the patents required certain technical elements that Apple's accused technology did not practice. The specific reasoning behind the summary judgment was not fully detailed in the available portion of the Federal Circuit's disposition, which notes it is nonprecedential and therefore does not establish binding legal precedent.
R.N Nehushtan Trust appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from federal district courts. The trust was represented by a team of attorneys including John L. North of Taylor Duma LLP in Atlanta, who argued the case before the appellate court. The trust's legal team also included Peter M. Jones from Atlanta, Robert M. Harkins Jr. from Cherian LLP in Berkeley, and James Michael Woods from Washington, D.C.
Apple defended the appeal with representation from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, with Brittany Blueitt Amadi arguing for the tech giant. Apple's legal team included Laura E. Powell, Reid Whitaker, Kyle Edwards Haugh from San Francisco, and Mark D. Selwyn from Palo Alto.
The Federal Circuit panel that decided the case consisted of Circuit Judges Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes, with Judge Hughes authoring the opinion. The court's decision, filed January 14, 2026, maintains the district court's complete victory for Apple on all asserted patent claims.
The ruling represents another successful defense for Apple in patent litigation, as the company frequently faces intellectual property challenges related to its mobile device technologies. Patent infringement cases involving cellular communication and device security technologies have become increasingly common as smartphones and other mobile devices have proliferated.
The nonprecedential nature of the Federal Circuit's disposition means the ruling will not serve as binding precedent for future patent cases, though it may still be cited as persuasive authority. Nonprecedential dispositions are typically used by the Federal Circuit for cases that do not present novel legal issues or do not require extended analysis of patent law principles.
For R.N Nehushtan Trust, the Federal Circuit's affirmance represents the end of its patent infringement claims against Apple, unless the trust seeks further review from the Supreme Court. However, given the case's nonprecedential status and the rarity with which the high court grants certiorari in patent cases, further appeal appears unlikely.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges patent holders face in asserting intellectual property rights against major technology companies, particularly in cases involving complex technical standards and device security implementations. Apple's victory adds to its track record of successfully defending against patent infringement claims in federal court.
The ruling also demonstrates the Federal Circuit's continued role as the primary arbiter of patent disputes in the United States, with its specialized jurisdiction over patent appeals from district courts nationwide. The court's decision to issue a nonprecedential disposition suggests the panel viewed the case as a straightforward application of existing patent law principles rather than presenting novel legal questions requiring precedential guidance.