{"id":410,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=410"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"smith-interface-apple-strike-indirect-infringement-contentions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=410","title":{"rendered":"Smith Interface Technologies v. Apple \u2014 S.D. Cal. Strikes Plaintiff’s Indirect Patent Infringement Contentions Without Leave to Amend"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Smith Interface Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:23-cv-01187<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Patent infringement, induced infringement, contributory infringement, Patent Local Rule 3.1(d), motion to strike infringement contentions<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, sued Apple Inc. in the Southern District of California for patent infringement involving touch-interface technology in Apple products. The Southern District of California is one of a handful of federal courts that has adopted detailed Patent Local Rules \u2014 specialized procedural rules that govern how patent cases proceed. Patent Local Rule 3.1(d) requires patent plaintiffs to disclose, for each patent claim alleged to be indirectly infringed: “an identification of any direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement.”<\/p>\n

Apple moved to strike Smith Interface’s amended Patent L.R. 3.1 disclosures, arguing that they did not satisfy the rule’s specificity requirement. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) agreeing with Apple. Smith Interface initially filed an objection but later withdrew it, leaving the R&R unopposed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court adopted the R&R in full and granted Apple’s motion to strike the indirect infringement contentions, without leave to amend. Because no objection remained pending, the court reviewed only for clear error on the face of the record, which it did not find.<\/p>\n

The struck portions of Smith Interface’s disclosures included broad allegations that Apple “knowingly induces the infringement” of the asserted claims by resellers, retailers, and end users; that “acts of direct infringement by resellers and retailers” include selling and importing the accused products; that Apple “enters into commercial contracts, arrangements, or other practices to encourage retailers and resellers” to sell or import; that Apple “provides instructions contained in, for example, its user manuals, conducts remote software updates, and otherwise configures the Accused Products to include infringing functionality”; and that Apple has been supplying components in or from the United States in a manner that would actively induce extraterritorial combination.<\/p>\n

Patent L.R. 3.1(d) requires identification of specific direct infringers and specific acts that contribute to or induce the direct infringement. Generic boilerplate descriptions are not enough; the rule was designed to give the defendant fair notice of the indirect-infringement theory in concrete terms early in the case so that discovery and claim construction can proceed efficiently.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n