The court granted in part defendant's motion for summary judgment that plaintiff's handset device patent was obvious and rejected plaintiff's argument that the commercial success of the accused phone was relevant to secondary considerations of nonobviousness. "[A]lthough Plaintiff has introduced evidence that iPhone purchasers put significant value on the iPhone’s ability to switch between a cellular network and a Wi-Fi network, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this feature infringes its patent, or that the iPhone’s success is linked to its transmission of e-mail to a LAN at a lower power than that used to transmit to a WAN. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate infringement and a nexus between its invention and the iPhone’s success. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot rely on the commercial success of the iPhone as a secondary indication of non-obviousness."
NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., 2-10-cv-03257 (CACD February 27, 2012, Order) (Kronstadt, J.)