The underlying dispute pits Smith Interface Technologies against Apple over patents the company says cover interface technology. Smith Interface holds U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754, among other asserted patents, and sued Apple in the Southern District of California. Apple responded by alleging that the patent applicants had committed fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office — specifically, that they buried examiners under over a thousand prior art references to hide material information about Apple's iOS 12 and iOS 13 operating systems, and that they falsely designated the '754 Patent as a continuation rather than a continuation-in-part of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/581,918.
Judge Todd W. Robinson granted Smith Interface's motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 28, 2026, finding Apple's defenses deficient on multiple grounds. On the false-priority theory, the court held that the 71 paragraphs of allegedly new matter Apple pointed to were not new at all: the '754 Patent expressly incorporates by reference the '918 Provisional Application, and under 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d) and M.P.E.P. § 2163.07(b), replacing incorporated material with actual text does not constitute new matter. The court took judicial notice of the patent and provisional application, declining to accept Apple's contrary allegations as true. Because the false-priority theory rests entirely on a written description conclusion that the incorporation-by-reference doctrine forecloses, the court held amendment on that specific theory would be futile.
On Apple's remaining inequitable conduct allegations — centered on the iOS 12 and iOS 13 prior art — the court found Apple adequately pleaded what was withheld, why it was material, and intent to deceive, but failed on the who element. Apple's Amended Answer identified, in relevant part, at least Michael S. Smith and Patrick E. Caldwell of The Caldwell Law Firm, LLC, acting either alone or with others at the firm. The court held that formulation does not permit a reasonable inference that any specific individual knew of the material information and intended to deceive the PTO. The court also noted that the duty of candor applies to individuals, not to organizations like The Caldwell Law Firm, LLC.
Apple's unclean hands defense fared no better. To the extent it rested on inequitable conduct, it failed for the same Rule 9(b) reasons. To the extent it rested on prosecution laches — which requires only Rule 8 notice pleading — Apple's conclusory assertion that the '754 Patent is unenforceable still fell short of giving Smith Interface adequate notice of the theory. Apple's additional allegation that the applicants planned and executed a scheme to defraud the PTO and the court was also struck for failure to plead the who, what, when, how, and why with the particularity Rule 9(b) demands.
The court granted Apple leave to amend its inequitable conduct and unclean hands defenses — except for the false-priority theory — with a Second Amended Answer due February 27, 2026.