VPN capabilities of iPhone, iPad targeted in patent suit against Apple
Apple, along with a handful of other companies, is the target of a new lawsuit that claims iOS devices, including the iPhone and iPad, violate a patent related to virtual private networking.
This week VirnetX filed a complaint against Apple, along with Cisco Systems, Astra Technologies, and NEC Corporation. The California-based corporation has accused the defendants of patent infringement. In all, five specific patents are named in the suit:
U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 - "Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability"
6,839,759 - "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network Without User Entering Any Cryptographic Information"
7,188,180 - "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network"
7,418,504 - Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names"
7,490,151 - "Establishment of a Secure Communication Link Based on a Domain Name Service (DNS) Request"
With respect to Apple, VirnetX has accused the Cupertino, Calif., company of violating the patents ending in 135 and 151. The suit specifically mentions the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod touch and iPad as violating numerous claims in each patent.
"Apple's acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX," the complaint reads. "VirnetX is entitled to recover from Apple the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of Apple's wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of Apple have caused, are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is no adequate remedy at law."
VirnetX bills itself as "seamless, automatic, Internet security." Its website says that the company is "engaged in commercializing its patent portfolio by developing a licensing program." It said it owns more than 48 U.S. and international patents.
As noted by Bloomberg, earlier this year VirnetX won $200 million in a similar lawsuit against Microsoft. The Redmond, Wash., software giant settled the case over the VPN-related patents.
The latest complaint against Apple was filed in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent suits are frequently filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
This week VirnetX filed a complaint against Apple, along with Cisco Systems, Astra Technologies, and NEC Corporation. The California-based corporation has accused the defendants of patent infringement. In all, five specific patents are named in the suit:
U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 - "Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability"
6,839,759 - "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network Without User Entering Any Cryptographic Information"
7,188,180 - "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network"
7,418,504 - Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names"
7,490,151 - "Establishment of a Secure Communication Link Based on a Domain Name Service (DNS) Request"
With respect to Apple, VirnetX has accused the Cupertino, Calif., company of violating the patents ending in 135 and 151. The suit specifically mentions the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod touch and iPad as violating numerous claims in each patent.
"Apple's acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX," the complaint reads. "VirnetX is entitled to recover from Apple the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of Apple's wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of Apple have caused, are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is no adequate remedy at law."
VirnetX bills itself as "seamless, automatic, Internet security." Its website says that the company is "engaged in commercializing its patent portfolio by developing a licensing program." It said it owns more than 48 U.S. and international patents.
As noted by Bloomberg, earlier this year VirnetX won $200 million in a similar lawsuit against Microsoft. The Redmond, Wash., software giant settled the case over the VPN-related patents.
The latest complaint against Apple was filed in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent suits are frequently filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
Comments
The latest complaint against Apple was filed in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent suits are frequently filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
How much longer must we suffer with lawsuits like this, where some no-name company happens to hold an extremely generic patient, doesn't do anything but squat on the idea, waits for some company to implement this method, and sues them for it? Further, why are these logic-defying lawsuits so often effective in the Eastern District of Texas? I think I know, but I don't want to be mean...
Software patents shouldn't be granted to those who don't implement them, or if anything, be revoked after a year or two if no active development has taken place. This has all been said before... nothing has been done about it... and you have innovative companies like Apple, Cisco, and dare I say, even Microsoft, being sued millions of dollars for no good reason. Isn't it time that all these companies band together and collectively say "F--- this, we're not paying, the U.S. patent system needs to be fixed, and let us know when it is."...?
It's pathetic how innovation is potentially being held back by some greedy no-name fools.
How much longer must we suffer with lawsuits like this, where some no-name company happens to hold an extremely generic patient, doesn't do anything but squat on the idea, waits for some company to implement this method, and sues them for it? Further, why are these logic-defying lawsuits so often effective in the Eastern District of Texas? I think I know, but I don't want to be mean...
Software patents shouldn't be granted to those who don't implement them, or if anything, be revoked after a year or two if no active development has taken place. This has all been said before... nothing has been done about it... and you have innovative companies like Apple, Cisco, and dare I say, even Microsoft, being sued millions of dollars for no good reason. Isn't it time that all these companies band together and collectively say "F--- this, we're not paying, the U.S. patent system needs to be fixed, and let us know when it is."...?
It's pathetic how innovation is potentially being held back by some greedy no-name fools.
While I agree with you in principle, each suit needs to be judged on its merits. In some cases, I'm sure the claims are valid.
The fact that this one was filed in this particular court makes me a bit suspicious.
Welcome to America... effin sad...
I see your ?America" and raise you the "East District Court of Texas?.
Software patents shouldn't be granted to those who don't implement them.
That would completely change the patent system, to the detriment of every small inventor in the country - and vastly enriching large companies.
I'm not going to argue about software patents-there are far too many issues to go into here. But the premise that you shouldn't get a patent unless you actually produce something would be disastrous. The entire function of the patent system is to level the playing field. If I invent a new invention for a gas turbine, there's no way in the world I could invest the billions of dollars needed to get into the gas turbine business, so I could NEVER use the patent. Your proposal would allow GE to simply steal my technology since I could never get a patent. Or, if 'non-use' were their defense, they could simply wrap me up with legal expenses. Big companies would, by default, be able to steal any technology they want from the little guys.
Patents are designed to reward the inventor. If I truly invent something, no one else should be able to use it without paying me - whether I have the resources (or interest) to make it myself.
I see your ?America" and raise you the "East District Court of Texas?.
I'll take that action!
I'll take that action!
East District Court of Texas Hold?em: The Game Where Only the Lawyers Win.
What a shocker, filed in the East District Court of Texas again.
if they go out of their way to file the suit in Marshall Texas, its full of crap.. OK, if they happen to live in east Texas, then its understandable. But otherwise, file there and you only have noise.
It turns out that much of the money coming in to Marshall texas is due to these law suits. Motel rooms, food stores, rental equipment, rental cars.... etc.... come there and sue and the locals understand this.
That is why the suing person is 75% more likely to win, just by suing there.
Just a thoughtful thought.
en
PS, I have been there. Nothing but lawsuit heaven.
Makes me wonder why they didn't include Apple, Cisco, and NEC in the original lawsuit against MS? Unless they don't have as strong of a case against them as they had against MS, and are now using the settlement with MS as a way to make their patents seem more legit in this new case. Try to influence the judge/jury that these other defendants are also infringing just like MS was.
Probably to establish a factual basis for further lawsuits and/or to induce others who they believe to be infringing to license their patents without a lawsuit.
There needs to be a separate court for computer patents, where the judges know what's a real innovation and what would be obvious to any computer nerd (even without the benefit of hindsight).
Maybe, but judges in highly technical cases (computer patents hardly being the only one of that kind) can appoint a Special Master to help them work though the technical issues.
Maybe, but judges in highly technical cases (computer patents hardly being the only one of that kind) can appoint a Special Master to help them work though the technical issues.
Well there sure seem to be a lot of specious technical patents out there.
if they go out of their way to file the suit in Marshall Texas, its full of crap.. OK, if they happen to live in east Texas, then its understandable. But otherwise, file there and you only have noise.
It turns out that much of the money coming in to Marshall texas is due to these law suits. Motel rooms, food stores, rental equipment, rental cars.... etc.... come there and sue and the locals understand this.
That is why the suing person is 75% more likely to win, just by suing there.
Just a thoughtful thought.
en
PS, I have been there. Nothing but lawsuit heaven.
Wow, and this hasn't raised any eyebrows that something curious might be going on there?
Gotdamn, lawsuit rate is higher than a bitch in E this week.
Indeed it is:
Apple sues "inferior quality" iPod, iPhone and iPad accessory makers
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ry_makers.html
Apple sues resellers over power adapters
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20010156-37.html
Apple sues HTC for infringing 20 iPhone patents
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/a...phone-patents/
Apple Files New Trade Complaint With Against Nokia
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aOUohioz.WXc
Apple Sues Eastman Kodak for Patent Infringement
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ringement.html
Apple sues another company with an apple logo
http://creativebits.org/opinion/appl...any_apple_logo
The patent system needs some fixing. VPN has been around before the 2000-2003 filing dates of some of these patents. The US Patent Office is a wreck just like the rest of the government.
I really wish people would stop posting about topics they don't understand.
The CONCEPT of VPN is not patentable. You can only patent an implementation. It is entirely possible that there could have been 1,000 implementations of VPN before 2000, but if this company invented a new way of doing it that they could patent that particular method.
Makes me wonder why they didn't include Apple, Cisco, and NEC in the original lawsuit against MS? Unless they don't have as strong of a case against them as they had against MS, and are now using the settlement with MS as a way to make their patents seem more legit in this new case. Try to influence the judge/jury that these other defendants are also infringing just like MS was.
Because you almost never sue ALL infringers at the same time - both for strategic and financial reasons. Typically, you spend a lot of time deciding which alleged infringer to go after. The first case is critical because once you've won a case, it becomes much easier to win other cases.
Therefore, you sometimes go after the weakest company - in the hopes of getting them to settle to avoid litigation that might put them out of business. Or, you go after a cash rich company where you have a very strong case - in the hopes that the company will settle to avoid the nuisance of a suit.
SOP.
Well there sure seem to be a lot of specious technical patents out there.
Granted, it's become a litigator's paradise, but even though this knife cuts both ways, I hardly hear anyone outside of forums like this complaining about specious technical patents. The companies which are forced to duke it out in court over who owns what don't seem to mind.