BACKGROUND

25 Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation contains a thorough and 26 accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying Apple’s Motion. (See 27 R&R at 2–3.) This Order incorporates by reference the background set forth therein. 28 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 3 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 4 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 5 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 6 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 7 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 8 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 9 in order to accept the recommendation.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 10 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 11 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 12 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 13 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 14 ANALYSIS 15 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that it is 16 thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court therefore ADOPTS 17 Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS 18 Apple’s Motion, without leave to amend. 19 In particular, the Court strikes the following from Smith Interface’s “Amended 20 Patent L.R. 3.1 and 3.2 Disclosures,” dated June 25, 2025: 21 IV. Patent Local Rule 3.1(d) Patent L. R. 3.1(d) requires Smith Interface to disclose: “For each claim 22 which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an identification of any 23 direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar as 24 alleged direct infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role 25

26 1 On September 5, 2025, Smith Interface filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s Report 27 and Recommendation. (ECF No. 177.) But on December 16, 2025, Smith Interface withdrew the Objection. (See ECF No. 210.) Thus, the Court treats Smith Interface’s Motion as if Apple’s Objection 28 1 of each such party in the direct infringement must be described.” In response to Patent L. R. 3.1(d), Smith Interface states as follows: 2 ’754 Patent: 3 Based on information presently and reasonably available to Smith Interface, Smith Interface contends that Apple knowingly induces the 4 infringement of the Asserted Claims by others, including resellers, retailers, 5 and end users of the Accused Products. Acts of direct infringement by resellers and retailers of the Accused Products include selling and/or offering 6 to sell the Accused Products within the United States, importing the Accused 7 Products into the United States, and/or using the Accused Products in the United States. Acts of direct infringement by end users include using the 8 Accused Products in the United States. Regardless of whether Apple also 9 committed an act of direct infringement for a given Accused Product, each subsequent act of direct infringement by resellers, retailers, and end users of 10 the Accused Products constitutes a separate act of direct infringement. 11 Apple was informed at least as early as June 27, 2023 of its infringement of the ’754 Patent, when Smith Interface filed its Complaint. See 12 ECF No. 1. On information and belief, with knowledge of the infringing 13 nature of the Accused Products, Apple enters into commercial contracts, arrangements, or other practices to encourage retailers and resellers to sell 14 and/or offer to sell the Accused Products within the United States, and/or 15 import the Accused Products into the United States, thereby directly infringing the Asserted Claims. 16 On information and belief, with knowledge of the infringing nature of 17 the Accused Products, Apple provides instructions contained in, for example, its user manuals, conducts remote software updates, and otherwise configures 18 the Accused Products to include infringing functionality and, thus, encourages 19 retailers, resellers, and end users of the Accused Products to use the Accused Products, thereby directly infringing the Asserted Claims. On information and 20 belief, Apple has been supplying in or from the United States all or a 21 substantial portion of the components of the patented invention, in such a manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of 22 the United States in a manner that would infringe the Asserted Claims if such 23 combination occurred within the United States. 24 (See ECF No. 155-6 at 6–8.) 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / l CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Ferrero’s Report and 3 ||Recommendation (R&R) in its entirety and GRANTS Defendant Apple’s Motion to Strike 4 || Apple’s Indirect Infringement Contentions (Mot.), without leave to amend. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 5, 2026 —_ [59 1S bee 8 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28