Apple loses appeal of $439 million verdict in favor of VirnetX
On Tuesday the federal U.S. Court of Appeals denied Apple's appeal of a 2016 jury verdict in favor of VirnetX, which initially granted the patent licensing firm $302.4 million in damages.
The decision comes despite VirnetX's patent claims being ruled invalid by an administrative court, Reuters noted. The latter outcome is itself being appealed.
In April 2018 Apple was found to have infringed on four VirnetX patents for secure communications, including its VPN-on-Demand technology and consumer FaceTime and iMessage software and services. The jury awarded VirnetX $502.6 million, adding to an earlier win in a similar case that brought the amount owed by Apple to nearly $1 billion.
In August, Apple was denied a motion for a new trial in a long-running patent fight, leaving Apple the option to appeal the verdict.
The contents of a final judgement were unsealed in September, revealing that VirnetX was granted only half the "sunset royalty" it demanded, and was refused an embargo on sales and imports at the same time. Both sides were denied motions, but ultimately Apple escaped far harsher financial penalties.
The legal affair was first started in 2010 by VirnetX claiming multiple instances of patent infringement in Apple's products. In 2012, a Texas court ordered Apple to pay $368 million for infringing one patent, but that judgement was vacated almost two years later.
That case was then rolled in with another patent suit in a 2016 damages retrial, which landed Apple a $625 million penalty, later tossed over claims the trial was unfair due to jury confusion. Two retrials later VirnetX was awarded $302.4 million, enhanced to $439 million after Apple was found by the court to have willfully infringed the patents.
The decision comes despite VirnetX's patent claims being ruled invalid by an administrative court, Reuters noted. The latter outcome is itself being appealed.
In April 2018 Apple was found to have infringed on four VirnetX patents for secure communications, including its VPN-on-Demand technology and consumer FaceTime and iMessage software and services. The jury awarded VirnetX $502.6 million, adding to an earlier win in a similar case that brought the amount owed by Apple to nearly $1 billion.
In August, Apple was denied a motion for a new trial in a long-running patent fight, leaving Apple the option to appeal the verdict.
The contents of a final judgement were unsealed in September, revealing that VirnetX was granted only half the "sunset royalty" it demanded, and was refused an embargo on sales and imports at the same time. Both sides were denied motions, but ultimately Apple escaped far harsher financial penalties.
The legal affair was first started in 2010 by VirnetX claiming multiple instances of patent infringement in Apple's products. In 2012, a Texas court ordered Apple to pay $368 million for infringing one patent, but that judgement was vacated almost two years later.
That case was then rolled in with another patent suit in a 2016 damages retrial, which landed Apple a $625 million penalty, later tossed over claims the trial was unfair due to jury confusion. Two retrials later VirnetX was awarded $302.4 million, enhanced to $439 million after Apple was found by the court to have willfully infringed the patents.
Comments
Disagree. No one should pay up for frivolous patents. That's the whole problem.
It’s exactly why software shouldn’t be patentable and should instead rely on copyright protection to prevent theft. Ideas are separate from implementation. Parenting “a flying car” (idea) isn’t legit, but patenting exactly how *your* car flies (design of the anti-grav motor) is. Should be the same with software...the idea is easy and vague, but the coded implementation is the hard part, and, as written speech, is already protected by copyright.
We don’t need software patents when copyright already protects code. If it’s not the same code, it’s not the same implementation. If it’s not the same implementation it doesn’t merit patent protection.
In a fast moving field like technology, I think it might make sense to have a couple of years of protection for new ideas--to reward innovation--plus protection from too close or deceptive copying.
My family owns 9 iPhones but sadly Apple is not paying for the patents it is using in its hardware. Their profits per phone are in excess of $500 and they will not pay even 5% of these profits to the hundreds of patents they use. The courts are finally making Apple pay the pide piper. You cannot FaceTime without using VirnetX patents and Apple tried a $51 million work around for twenty months a ways back and received 500,000 complaints. So Apple gave up and resumed stealing VirnetX patents. The Appellate court ruled quickly (in one week - today) that Apples stealing of VirnetX patents during IMessaging is not acceptable. The next VirnetX Appellate decision will be concerning FaceTime. Apple has lost 4 jury trials showing up to court with 35 lawyers. This piracy that Jobs was proud must stop and the tide is now turning. Qualcomm also is fed up with the thievery per this Link:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/12/10/china-court-grants-qualcomm-injunction-against-apple.html
Tommyboy