VirnetX heads back to court, adds latest Apple products to FaceTime patent lawsuit

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Patent holding company VirnetX on Tuesday announced that it will attempt to add Apple's most recent slate of products --?including the iPhone 5s and iPad Air --?to an ongoing patent infringement action that accuses Apple of violating VirnetX's secure networking patents.

FaceTime


According to the announcement, VirnetX has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to allow the inclusion of Apple's iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops --?essentially, every product capable of making a FaceTime call --?in the suit over patents covering peer-to-peer VPN technologies.

VirnetX first took Apple to court in November 2011, alleging that the iPhone 4S's FaceTime capabilities infringed VirnetX's U.S. Patent No. 8,05,181 entitled "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network." Apple lost that case and was ordered to pay damages of $368,160,000, an award that was appealed and later upheld.

Soon after that victory, VirnetX filed suit again, asserting the same intellectual property against the iPhone 5, fourth-generation iPad, iPad mini, fifth-generation iPod touch and the then-newest Mac computers. This second action is still pending, and is the suit VirnetX is seeking to amend.

Apple has since altered FaceTime's behavior to avoid further infringement, changes that are said to have been the source of more than half a million customer complaints and cost the company an additional $2.4 million per month.

VirnetX, however, does not believe Apple's changes have been substantial enough. In a news release announcing Tuesday's filing, CEO Kendall Larsen said the company believes "Apple continues to use our inventions in the majority of its products" and that they "are confident that we will prevail in proving that Apple products, including the new products added to the suit, infringe on our inventions."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    I was going to say that Apple just needs to buy the company, but VirnetX is just a patent troll, they don't produce anything but lawsuits.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    dipdog3 wrote: »
    I was going to say that Apple just needs to buy the company, but VirnetX is just a patent troll, they don't produce anything but lawsuits.

    If Apple don't buy them out soon Google will.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    Companies like this really need to be outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    This article is misleading. It claims the judgement on appeal against Apple was upheld. Not true. The initial trial judge affirmed his ruling on the case, but the Appeals court has not heard the case.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post



    Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

     

    Agreed. The patents would be very useful foundations for academic programs and future engineering/cs students to study.

  • Reply 6 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,095member
    mikhailt wrote: »
    Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

    VirnetX has actual products to sell, tho I don't think they bring in much revenue. Your idea wouldn't apply to them anyway even if it had merit.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    VirnetX has actual products to sell, tho I don't think they bring in much revenue. Your idea wouldn't apply to them anyway even if it had merit.

     

    Really, what products? The companies website claims its is a patent holding company.  The only thing I see for sale is a license. 

  • Reply 8 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,095member
    tbell wrote: »
    Really, what products? The companies website claims its is a patent holding company.  The only thing I see for sale is a license. 

    Gabriel Connection aka VirnetX Internet Services
    http://virnetx.com/virnetx-launches-gabriel-connection-technology-oem-software-development-kit/
  • Reply 9 of 29
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post



    Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

     

    The problem with your argument is that some companies can't actually afford to build some of the things they invent, so that is where licensing comes in. What needs to be changed is the way patents are approved, and the time limit in which a company must file a lawsuit after learning its patent is possibly being violated. Currently, patents are purposefully written in a way that other companies trying to research patents have a difficult time finding relevant patents. This results in companies not being able to do a patent review even if they wanted to do so. Additionally, companies like VirnetX sit around quietly sometimes for years purposively allowing its alleged IP to be infringed waiting until a product is successful. There should be a year or less time requirement for filing a lawsuit after first learning of the alleged infringement. 

  • Reply 10 of 29
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Gabriel Connection aka VirnetX Internet Services

    http://virnetx.com/virnetx-launches-gabriel-connection-technology-oem-software-development-kit/

     

    Fair enough. I still don't see where you can actually buy the product. 

  • Reply 11 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    According to the announcement, VirnetX has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to allow the inclusion of Apple's iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops --?essentially, every product capable of making a FaceTime call --?in the suit over patents covering peer-to-peer VPN technologies.

     

    Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

  • Reply 12 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,095member
    tbell wrote: »
    Fair enough. I still don't see where you can actually buy the product. 

    I think it's there only to cover their butt on "patent troll" accusations. Technically they have product for sale.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    d4njvrzf wrote: »
    According to the announcement, VirnetX has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to allow the inclusion of Apple's iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops --?essentially, every product capable of making a FaceTime call --?in the suit over patents covering peer-to-peer VPN technologies.

     
    Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

    Because that venue has a deserved reputation for favoring the plaintiffs.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post



    This article is misleading. It claims the judgement on appeal against Apple was upheld. Not true. The initial trial judge affirmed his ruling on the case, but the Appeals court has not heard the case.



    It always amazes me to see how many people here celebrate the "victories" of Apple over Samsung (et al) .. how the cheers always reach a crescendo irrespective of how dubious the trial may have been, and how the howls of rage peel across the internet when the exact same patentl laws lead to judgements against Apple. Really people, you can't have one rule for Apple and another for the rest of the world.

     

    What VirnetX is, is arguable a step above the consortium that Apple and Microsoft et al created to buy the Nortel Patents which they are now using in exactly the same way as any other Patent troll against Google et al. Talk about moral double standards !! It frankly amazes me.

     

    But you know the saying "if you can't innovate, litigate".

     

    Oh yes .. the Apple/Samsung litigation has also not completed the appeals process .. so how the F* is that any different to the VirnetX litigation you're talking about ?

     

    At some point I think the US will litigate itself into economic collapse .. and frankly I won't be sad to see it happen unless you get your act together, clean up your legal system and create some place for sanity in your society.

     

    What does make me sad is to think what a waste it is ... mutual assured destruction in every conceivable context. Wow !

  • Reply 15 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I think it's there only to cover their butt on "patent troll" accusations. Technically they have product for sale.

     

    You can try and register to use their "product":

     

    https://myvirnetx.com/register/request

     

    But it doesn't sound like they are really interested in having anyone use it:

    Quote:

     Patience, it may take a few months for us to generate enough capacity to send you an invite.


  • Reply 16 of 29

    It was a cold night. Some fat retard had nothing to do but think think think ....

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Title:

     

    Method for establishing secure communication link between computers of virtual private network

     

    United States Patent 8051181

     

     

    Abstract:

     

    A technique is disclosed for establishing a secure communication link between a first computer and a second computer over a computer network. Initially, a secure communication mode of communication is enabled at a first computer without a user entering any cryptographic information for establishing the secure communication mode of communication. Then, a secure communication link is established between the first computer and a second computer over a computer network based on the enabled secure communication mode of communication. The secure communication link is a virtual private network communication link over the computer network in which one or more data values that vary according to a pseudo-random sequence are inserted into each data packet.

     

     

    Who the **** approved this as so-called Patent?!?!?!

  • Reply 17 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post



    Companies like this really need to outlawed. If they're not producing anything on the market, they should be banned from filing any lawsuits and patents should automatically go into public domain.

     

    No they shouldn't. The only thing a patent holding company should be blocked from doing is seeking an injunction to block sales, for the simple reason they don't have any products that could be blocked in a suit brought against them. Owning patents and making money off them by licensing and/or suing others is perfectly legal and acceptable.

     

    Let's say I'm a physicist and I invent a new method to make even smaller transistors for microchips. The problem is that it would cost me 1$ billion (or more) to actually start making chips using my process (the price to buy a fab). So does that mean my patent should become public domain because I'm not actually fabbing chips? If Intel starts using my method to make new processors, I shouldn't be allowed to sue them because they're using my patented idea?

     

    What you're basically saying is companies with the means to use their patents in actual products get patent protection while inventors who have great ideas, but lack the money to implement them should suffer? That's beyond asinine.

  • Reply 18 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

     



    It always amazes me to see how many people here celebrate the "victories" of Apple over Samsung (et al) .. how the cheers always reach a crescendo irrespective of how dubious the trial may have been, and how the howls of rage peel across the internet when the exact same patentl laws lead to judgements against Apple. Really people, you can't have one rule for Apple and another for the rest of the world.

     

    What VirnetX is, is arguable a step above the consortium that Apple and Microsoft et al created to buy the Nortel Patents which they are now using in exactly the same way as any other Patent troll against Google et al. Talk about moral double standards !! It frankly amazes me.

     

    But you know the saying "if you can't innovate, litigate".

     

    Oh yes .. the Apple/Samsung litigation has also not completed the appeals process .. so how the F* is that any different to the VirnetX litigation you're talking about ?

     

    At some point I think the US will litigate itself into economic collapse .. and frankly I won't be sad to see it happen unless you get your act together, clean up your legal system and create some place for sanity in your society.

     

    What does make me sad is to think what a waste it is ... mutual assured destruction in every conceivable context. Wow !


     

    A reasonable comment.

    But why bother even making it on this site?

    This site slowly but sure descends into a "white power" equivalent of the "tech" world...

  • Reply 19 of 29
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,367member
    d4njvrzf wrote: »
    Why do these suits always seem to start in East Texas?

    Because there my friend the world is flat, 6000 years old, circled by the sun moon and stars, dinosaurs still roam and CO2 count is less than .00001 ppm ...
  • Reply 20 of 29
    davendaven Posts: 543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Gabriel Connection aka VirnetX Internet Services

    http://virnetx.com/virnetx-launches-gabriel-connection-technology-oem-software-development-kit/

    I wouldn't exactly call that a product. It is a Software Development Kit (SDK) that basically is a bit of code showing how their patent could be implemented. That is like selling the code behind 'slide to unlock' and calling it a product.

     

    Be that as it may, how the heck the the east Texas jury figure that the way a FaceTime call is set-up is worth one third of all the patent infringement that Samsung did against Apple? I haven't used FaceTime in years. Has it suddenly become immensely popular?

Sign In or Register to comment.