VirnetX patents ruled invalid ahead of retrial in ongoing legal battle with Apple

Posted:
in General Discussion
Four patents VirnetX said were infringed by Apple have been deemed invalid by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, something which could potentially be a major setback in an upcoming retrial.




The patents don't actually cover new inventions, the Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board argued, according to Bloomberg. Two of the patent rulings stemmed from challenges by Apple, but the remaining two were actually based on petitions filed by a hedge fund, Mangrove Partners.

VirnetX CEO Kendell Larsen said his company will appeal the USPTO's decisions, claiming that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will "make the final determination." The company will presumably first ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reconsider -- in any event, the patents in the case will technically remain valid until VirnetX exhausts its appeal options.

Apple is asking that the retrial, for which jury selection should begin later this month, be delayed until the VirnetX patent appeals are finished. The latter company is not only opposing that, but asking the judge to reinstate an original verdict in its favor.

VirnetX was briefly awarded over $625 million in damages for alleged infringements by Apple technologies like FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN on Demand. Apple appealed however, and in August the verdict was tossed with plans for not one but two retrials.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    What else would VirnetX do?  However, it does seem like a perversion of justice for Apple to have to defend itself against claims it violated patents that may be invalid. Retrial ought to be delayed until tha question is settled!
    jbdragon
  • Reply 2 of 12
    Courts favor judicial economy. Since the patents have been ruled invalid as a final determination, although subject to appeal, I'll bet that the court defers any trial until the appeals court has ruled.
    EsquireCats
  • Reply 3 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,598member
    williamh said:
    What else would VirnetX do?  However, it does seem like a perversion of justice for Apple to have to defend itself against claims it violated patents that may be invalid. Retrial ought to be delayed until tha question is settled!
    Apple has been on the happy end of that same issue too, with other companies sometimes having to defend themselves from Apple patent claims that have been ruled invalid. Worse, if a company is found to have infringed a patent and paid a judgement or royalties they don't get that money back if the patent is ruled invalid in a final determination. Dem's da' rules everyone is playing by unfortunately.  
  • Reply 4 of 12
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,998member
    The Patent Office giveth and the Patent Office taketh away. So the Patent Office Initially granted  the patents but now says they shouldn’t have. A certain patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland in 1905 would not have been amused. He had better things to do with time.  :)
    edited September 2016 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 5 of 12
    In this case, glad to see something going Apple's way. If I were VirnetX I'd want to sue the USPTO for damages.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    too bad so sad. 
  • Reply 7 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,598member
    A potentially much more important case regarding software patents and what is patentable material is still awaiting an Appeals Court ruling, over 9 months after final arguments were heard. Geesh the wheels turn slow...
    McRO Inc., DBA Planet Blue v Bandai Namco Games America et al
    edited September 2016
  • Reply 8 of 12
    Isn't this the patent claim that blocked Apple from making FaceTime an open standard like they promised at the release?  I wonder if they will consider doing that again once all of the appeals are complete.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,665member
    Are the VirnetX patents covering encryption of iMessages and FaceTimes video on both ends? If so, this is really obvious.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    ...VirnetX CEO Kendell Larsen said his company will appeal the USPTO's decisions, claiming that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will "make the final determination." ...

    un F'n believable!... patents are not issued by the courts, so the courts should only be for determining the liability... and since they are garbage. No liability.

    Patents should be, and only be, issued or  invalidated by the USPTO.

    these damn patents were  hastily issued, thus the USPTO 
    invalidated them... NO SECOND CHANCES.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,598member
    haar said:
    ...VirnetX CEO Kendell Larsen said his company will appeal the USPTO's decisions, claiming that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will "make the final determination." ...

    un F'n believable!... patents are not issued by the courts, so the courts should only be for determining the liability... and since they are garbage. No liability.

    Patents should be, and only be, issued or  invalidated by the USPTO.

    these damn patents were  hastily issued, thus the USPTO invalidated them... NO SECOND CHANCES.
    That's the way the law works sir. As I mentioned earlier Apple has come out ahead themselves when the USPTO has found a patent of theirs invalid but the court did not take that into consideration. As a matter of fact Samsung is in the same position as Apple, with the court finding them to be infringing on Apple patents that the USPTO has decided are invalid. I realize you may think it's not fair but at least the gate swings both ways, sometimes to Apple's benefit and sometimes not. 

    To help you better understand patent claims and validity questions here's a link to a USPTO page that might explain it:
    http://www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/patent-litigation/about-patents
    edited September 2016 ronn
  • Reply 12 of 12
    gatorguy said:
    A potentially much more important case regarding software patents and what is patentable material is still awaiting an Appeals Court ruling, over 9 months after final arguments were heard. Geesh the wheels turn slow...
    McRO Inc., DBA Planet Blue v Bandai Namco Games America et al
    If one has ever been involved in a legal dispute that went to court or arbitration, the wheels ALWAYS turn very slowly.
Sign In or Register to comment.