MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. [OPINION]

MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. VACATED conclusion that IPSec is essential to the inven- tion. Id. at Title; id. at Abstract ("The method and system enable secure forwarding of a message . . . ."); id. at col. 1 ll. 7–8 ("The method and system of the invention are in- tended to secure connections in telecommunication net- works."); id. at col. 6 ll. 17–18 ("The object of the invention is to develop a method for forwarding secure messages be- tween two computers . . . ."). [Page 12] Case: 25-1069 Document: 57 Page: 12 Filed: 08/03/2026 12 MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY v. APPLE INC. The district court emphasized the sheer number of times that the specification talks about IPSec and how the invention is intended to work with IPSec protocols. Claim Construction Order, 2024 WL 4603055, at *3 ("As Apple noted in the Markman hearing, the term ['secure'] appears nearly 200 times in the '949 patent[]. These repeated ref- erences to IPSec strongl claim construction non-precedential claim construction non-precedential claim construction