(Photo: Songquan Deng/Shutterstock.com)

Prominent plaintiffs attorney Joseph Cotchett is representing a patent holder in a case against Apple Inc. over the "Do Not Disturb" feature on the company's mobile devices. 

Cotchett's client in the case, San Francisco-based SMTM Technology, alleges Apple has infringed upon its "Off Mode" patent for an application blocking incoming texts, calls and notifications while driving. Inventor and Bay Area restaurateur Nick Bovis secured the patent in 2015 to help prevent distracted driving—two years before Apple rolled out its Do Not Disturb feature touting similar capabilities, according to the complaint filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

"Given the massive legal resources available to Apple to search its new technology for patent infringement, and the knowledge that its software engineers and business executives have of the apps available for download on the Android platform, it is inconceivable that Apple was not fully aware of the Mr. Bovis' app and the Bovis Patent at the time it adopted 'Do Not Disturb,' " wrote Cotchett, of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, California, alongside senior associate Gina Stassi, as well as Paul Reidl of the Law Office of Paul W. Reidl in Half Moon Bay, California. 

Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP. (Courtesy photo)

After learning about Apple's launch of Do Not Disturb, Bovis contends that he contacted the Cupertino, California-based company and requested royalties on the patent. "Apple responded by disclaiming any liability for anything, and ultimately dismissed Mr. Bovis as a 'patent troll,'" according to the complaint. 

Not long after SMTM purchased the patent and contacted Apple, Unified Patents challenged the Bovis patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, SMTM's lawyers assert. "When SMTM accused Apple of instigating the PTAB challenge to the Bovis Patent, Apple denied having anything to do with it. In Apple's view, it was simply coincidental that the Unified Patents challenge occurred after Mr. Bovis had contacted Apple and asked for a reasonable royalty," the attorneys wrote.

Unified Patents argued the technology was already known, but the PTAB ruled that it "failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the [Bovis Patent.]"

SMTM is asking the court to rule the Bovis Patent valid and enforceable, permanently enjoin Apple from infringing on the patent and award damages for SMTM's alleged injuries.

Neither Apple nor the plaintiffs lawyers responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.