ITC will investigate VirnetX claims against Apple
In a statement published on Tuesday, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced it has agreed to investigate a complaint from software maker VirnetX, which asserts that certain Apple wireless-enabled devices infringe its patents.
Source: VirnetX
As noted by CNET, VirnetX, an internet security and technology company based in Zephyr Cove, NV, filed the complaint in September, leveraging an invention which covers a method of securely connecting two computers over a wireless network against Apple's iPhone, iPad and Mac models .
According to the ITC statement, VirnetX is seeking an import ban of offending Apple products, suggesting the company may be looking to reach some sort of settlement agreement out of court.
In a recent press release, the software company announced that patent infringement suits are also being leveled against Apple, Cisco, Avaya and Siemens, with Apple's trial slated to begin jury selection on Oct. 29, to be followed by a jury trial on Oct. 31. The remaining companies are scheduled to begin jury selection in March of 2013.
As for the ITC investigation, the body's Chief Administrative Law Judge has yet to assign the case to one of its six administrative law judges. Upon assignment, the ALJ will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing and make an initial determination as to whether a violation occurred. The initial determination is subject to review by the ITC Commission.
As of this writing, there is no due date set for final determination, but the ITC will set a target date for completion within 45 days of starting the investigation.
Source: VirnetX
As noted by CNET, VirnetX, an internet security and technology company based in Zephyr Cove, NV, filed the complaint in September, leveraging an invention which covers a method of securely connecting two computers over a wireless network against Apple's iPhone, iPad and Mac models .
According to the ITC statement, VirnetX is seeking an import ban of offending Apple products, suggesting the company may be looking to reach some sort of settlement agreement out of court.
In a recent press release, the software company announced that patent infringement suits are also being leveled against Apple, Cisco, Avaya and Siemens, with Apple's trial slated to begin jury selection on Oct. 29, to be followed by a jury trial on Oct. 31. The remaining companies are scheduled to begin jury selection in March of 2013.
As for the ITC investigation, the body's Chief Administrative Law Judge has yet to assign the case to one of its six administrative law judges. Upon assignment, the ALJ will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing and make an initial determination as to whether a violation occurred. The initial determination is subject to review by the ITC Commission.
As of this writing, there is no due date set for final determination, but the ITC will set a target date for completion within 45 days of starting the investigation.
Comments
VirnetX seems to be nothing more than a company that licenses patents or sues for infringement. They seem to be quite litigious in the past few years. Translation: patent troll.
Apple R&D is outdoing itself.
To date Apple has received a total of 951 Patents granted.
They are on a pace to surpass 1200 for the year.
Keep it up R&D.
It can take more than 90 days to analyze something but yes I do agree that how long a company waits should be a factor, say in statutory damages. It can't have bugged you that much if you were willing to let months and even years go buy so why should you get millions in damages.
I think any company asking for a sales ban should have to post a bond of say treble the estimated damages if the accused company is found in the clear before a prelim ban is awarded.
And in the case of Apple? Apple can wait for a year or two, maybe three or more- taking its own sweet time, before filing its patent infringement claims. Apple is so special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
It can take more than 90 days to analyze something but yes I do agree that how long a company waits should be a factor, say in statutory damages. It can't have bugged you that much if you were willing to let months and even years go buy so why should you get millions in damages.
I think any company asking for a sales ban should have to post a bond of say treble the estimated damages if the accused company is found in the clear before a prelim ban is awarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
VirnetX seems to be nothing more than a company that licenses patents or sues for infringement. They seem to be quite litigious in the past few years. Translation: patent troll.
Their patented technology was chosen by the Wireless Standards governing body to be the security protocol for 4G. I was told and have read that ANY company that uses 4G has to license and pay royalties for their patents.
This isn't a new case.
this a refiling
It was previously filed but investigation was terminated on a technicality. Took nearly a year for that to be said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-20/virnetx-loss-in-apple-itc-case-will-stand-agency-says
Why they didn't just allow the case to be amended is beyond me. You know its going to be refiled.
Then it's not much of an issue.
If Apple is using VirnetX' technology, Apple should pay. If the technology is SEP, then the rates need to be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
There is a big problem with FRAND/SEP abuse. Some people think they can have their cake and eat it, too. Submit their technology to become part of the standard and then use it as extortion to get more money from some companies than others. I don't know if that's what is happening in this case, but it has happened before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What are some of the examples you can offer? How did the courts punish those abuses of FRAND licensing?