VirnetX asks court to ban FaceTime and iMessage, add $190 million to patent payout

Posted:
in General Discussion
Intensifying its patent infringement case against Apple, VirnetX has asked a Texas court to order an injunction against FaceTime, iMessage, and a VPN feature, while simultaneously asking for greater damage payments on top of $625.6 million awarded earlier this year.




Apple could potentially owe an extra $190 million, Law360 said on Thursday. During a Wednesday court hearing, VirnetX argued that while the requested injunction might seem extreme, irreparable harm was caused, and the extra damages are due to Apple being a "poster child" for unreasonable legal tactics.

Apple is still seeking a mistrial for the earlier jury verdict. The company argues that an injunction or royalty payments would be inappropriate, given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the four patents-in-suit. It also claims that that a questionable argument was made to the jury, and moreover that despite the jury's verdict, the court should rule non-infringement given a lack of evidence.

VirnetX's battle with Apple extends back to 2012, when the latter was initially ordered to pay out $368.2 million. That decision was tossed, but this year's retrial resulted in an even higher damage sum.

If it can't have VirnetX's lawsuit quashed, Apple is likely to reach some sort of agreement to avoid any interruption of FaceTime or iMessage. Both services are critical to Mac and iOS devices, and would make many customers upset if they suddenly disappeared.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    doggonedoggone Posts: 188member
    Buy them.  Their market cap is 300M.  Then they will own the patents.
    lostkiwilkrupplongpathjony0moreckjustadcomicsjackansi
  • Reply 2 of 22
    spanadingspanading Posts: 74member
    Request full details of their supposedly infringed patent, including code/underlying logic. Given the secretive nature of this company it should stop them dead.
    anton zuykovlostkiwilordjohnwhorfinlongpathjony0jbdragonmoreckjustadcomics
  • Reply 3 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 
    edited May 2016 techloversingularitylord amhranrevenantdasanman69jackansi
  • Reply 4 of 22
    cashxxcashxx Posts: 106member
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 
    But the patents were rejected by the US patent office in this case.  Apple's patents are valid and Samdung and any other company have no right to copy!
    airbubbleanton zuykovmagman1979longpathmdriftmeyerjony0
  • Reply 5 of 22
    techlovertechlover Posts: 879member
    Here we go again, another thread full of "these guys are patent trolls" and "the patent system needs to be reformed"
    staticx57revenantdasanman69jackansi
  • Reply 6 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,061member
    techlover said:
    Here we go again, another thread full of "these guys are patent trolls" and "the patent system needs to be reformed"
    Speaking as someone who knows a former patent examiner (and current IP attorney), I can tell you that yes.  Yes it does.  
    dementuschikanteejay2012ronnlongpathjony0justadcomicsjackansi
  • Reply 7 of 22
    teejay2012teejay2012 Posts: 277member
    techlover said:
    Here we go again, another thread full of "these guys are patent trolls" and "the patent system needs to be reformed"
    Now that you mention it, these guys are patent trolls and the patent system needs to be reformed.
    edited May 2016 joedhimselfJanNLradarthekatmagman1979tommikelejony0latifbpjustadcomicsjackansi
  • Reply 8 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    cashxx said:
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 
    But the patents were rejected by the US patent office in this case.  Apple's patents are valid and Samdung and any other company have no right to copy!
    No, only one of the three (or perhaps it was four) asserted by VirnetX was found invalid by the USPTO. The others are currently valid AFAIK tho they may be under challenge. 
    revenant
  • Reply 9 of 22
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 
    Come on gatorguy, you know full well how egregious Samsung's copying of every single feature of the iPhone was - down to the shape of the charger, and the design of the packaging including the typeface used. They should have been kicked clear back to Korea. Their own documents were the compelling evidence. Unfortunately the court (judge) severely limited Apple in their claims.
    anton zuykovradarthekatmagman1979ronnlongpathmacseekerjony0jbdragon
  • Reply 10 of 22
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 
    You're ignoring the fact that one case relates to a non-practicing entity that simply leaches off society and the other case relates to two companies actively competing in the same commercial market.  That difference certainly counts for many people here even if it doesn't for you.
    lostkiwiradarthekatmagman1979ronnjony0jbdragonlatifbp
  • Reply 11 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    freerange said:
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 
    Come on gatorguy, you know full well how egregious Samsung's copying of every single feature of the iPhone was - down to the shape of the charger, and the design of the packaging including the typeface used. They should have been kicked clear back to Korea. Their own documents were the compelling evidence. Unfortunately the court (judge) severely limited Apple in their claims.

    You're ignoring the fact that one case relates to a non-practicing entity that simply leaches off society and the other case relates to two companies actively competing in the same commercial market.  That difference certainly counts for many people here even if it doesn't for you.
    I don't disagree. Making some legal differentiation between practicing and non-practicing entities may well be one of those patent reforms that's needed. As the law stands tho they're treated the same and Apple isn't making the argument that there's anything different between the two either. What they ARE making an argument for in this case is just the opposite of what they put forward based on the law in the Samsung case, that if there's a question about validity of the claims then an injunction isn't a proper cure. 

    I'm not at all saying Sammy shouldn't be held accountable. They should be. But if Apple and their counsel is supposedly so firmly convinced that an injunction against Samsung was not only appropriate but mandated on firm legally supportable grounds it's a little weird now to for them to argue for all intents that Samsung really has a valid point about injunctions and patent validity issues. We should accept that left is right and right is left. 
    singularityrevenantdasanman69latifbp
  • Reply 12 of 22
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,700member
    doggone said:
    Buy them.  Their market cap is 300M.  Then they will own the patents.
    That would be too easy, and send the wrong message to the industry.  Sue Apple, then get a big buyout paycheck.  Wrong.

    I'm glad Apple fights these patent-troll lawsuits.  It tells everyone that Apple won't take it lying down in submission.  Apple will hammer them hard and make the other patent trolls think twice about it down the road.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 13 of 22
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,398member
    doggone said:
    Buy them.  Their market cap is 300M.  Then they will own the patents.
    They probably wouldn't sell for less than $900 million.

    Besides, their patents will expire soon and subsequently be worthless. Utility patents last for 20 years (including software patents), design patents last for 14 years.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,398member

    spanading said:
    Request full details of their supposedly infringed patent, including code/underlying logic. Given the secretive nature of this company it should stop them dead.
    That's not how it works. You can contest the validity of the patent, but prior art is no longer a factor (since the US moved to "first to file") and their code isn't the issue, it's the function of the software.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 15 of 22
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 265member
    techlover said:
    Here we go again, another thread full of "these guys are patent trolls" and "the patent system needs to be reformed"
    Yes, they are patent trolls and yes the system needs to be reformed. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 

    I am just surprised that no one has taken you to task in leaving out a major element of this.

    I would have expected that you would have at least made the attempt to be fair and indicate that just as in the Samsung case then the valuation of the verdict must also be treated the same in this case.

    In other words, I am disappointed in you for not saying that VirnetX should get the same treatment as Apple VS Samsung.  At the end of the day the judgement should be roughly $1,347.18, after lawyer fees, just as Samsung whittled down the 84 billion they initially owed Apple.  (Amounts used are for entertainment purposes.)

    I do not disagree with you that Apple can not have it both ways, but I am always surprised how you pick and choose when you throw drivel and detail only when it suits you.  Usually when you are defending the world against Apple you put in that extra effort.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 

    I am just surprised that no one has taken you to task in leaving out a major element of this.

    I would have expected that you would have at least made the attempt to be fair and indicate that just as in the Samsung case then the valuation of the verdict must also be treated the same in this case.

    In other words, I am disappointed in you for not saying that VirnetX should get the same treatment as Apple VS Samsung.  At the end of the day the judgement should be roughly $1,347.18, after lawyer fees, just as Samsung whittled down the 84 billion they initially owed Apple.  (Amounts used are for entertainment purposes.)

    I do not disagree with you that Apple can not have it both ways, but I am always surprised how you pick and choose when you throw drivel and detail only when it suits you.  Usually when you are defending the world against Apple you put in that extra effort.
    I plainly said Samung deserved the punishment they got. IMHO they deserved to be punished even more.  Samsung has been a posterchild for Xeroxed products. If the VirnetX judge decides to reduce Apple's damages that would be fine by me. Far too many lawsuits over IP have been filed in recent years.

    The point made was that Apple is arguing both positions, injunctions not an appropriate remedy in one case and in the other it should be plainly be automatic based on the law. 

    Determining if one company should pay more or less or anything at all in real dollars for infringement of any specific patent claim requires a lot more knowledge of the law and damages theory than anyone here possesses  AFAIK and I'm certainly not qualified to compare damages in one case to those in another so I've no idea what pertinent detail was left out. But this much is obvious, or should be: When a company spends a great deal of energy and money and PR asserting one position as the only legal one it stands out like a sore thumb when a few months later they argue just the opposite. 
    edited May 2016 revenantdasanman69jackansi
  • Reply 18 of 22
    moreckmoreck Posts: 187member
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 
    They're two completely different cases, genius.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    moreck said:
    gatorguy said:
    Something that stands out in Apple's response:
    "Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

    That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity. 

    ...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms. 
    They're two completely different cases, genius. 
    Really? Two different cases? Well gosh, now that you've brought it up it looks like you're right. Even two different judges!
    dasanman69sirlance99singularityjackansi
  • Reply 20 of 22
    radster360radster360 Posts: 540member
    It is about time that Apple should buy off VirnetX and put all their patents in public domain. Not only would they be freeing them with repeated cases on same shit for every version of their product and OSes. Apple will actually be doing a civil service to other manufacturers including their competitors also. I am sure Microsoft is also tired of VirnetX (it is more like a Wormit)

Sign In or Register to comment.