VirnetX reverses ruling invalidating patents used against Apple
VirnetX has won another battle in its patent lawsuit with Apple, convincing the US Court of Appeals to vacate and remand decisions by the US Patent Office's Trial and Appeal Board that invalidated two patents. The new ruling gives VirnetX more leverage in receiving the $439 million the courts declared Apple owes.
FaceTime, a technology that became the subject of a patent lawsuit against Apple by VirnetX
In the latest installment of the ongoing saga that is VirnetX versus Apple, VirnetX has secured a legal win concerning two patents that it has claimed Apple infringed. In 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board argued four of the patents were invalid, as they didn't actually cover new inventions. This effectively prevented VirnetX using these particular patents against Apple.
On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion on two of the patents in question, specifically patent numbers 6,502,135 and 7,490,151. The opinion vacated and remanded decisions on both. The Court of Appeals disagreed with how the board had previously ruled, and in particular over the decision that these patents had unpatentable claims.
It is believed the board "abused its discretion in denying VirnetX the opportunity to file a motion for additional discovery as to real party-in-interest issues," a statement from VirnetX about the decision reads.
There were also issues with "many of the Board's positions as to the prior art lacked substantial evidence," and the belief the board "misconstructed the claims."
VirnetX CEO and President Kendall Larsen claims "We are extremely pleased with the Federal Court's decision which vindicates many of VirnetX's arguments about the Patent Board's decisions." Larsen also notes the decision follows a similar ruling on June 28 relating to patent 7,418,504, where a finding against three "unpatentable" claims were also vacated.
The decision could have a considerable impact against Apple, depending on what the courts allow VirnetX to do. As the patents were previously not able to be used to sue Apple, there may be a possibility VirnetX may reattempt the legal action, though at the very least, it strengthens its case to claim the $439 million Apple was ordered to pay for patent infringement.
In January, Apple was denied an appeal on the verdict, but it has also petitioned the entire Federal Circuit to rehear a panel discussion, in the hope it the appeal denial could be reconsidered.
FaceTime, a technology that became the subject of a patent lawsuit against Apple by VirnetX
In the latest installment of the ongoing saga that is VirnetX versus Apple, VirnetX has secured a legal win concerning two patents that it has claimed Apple infringed. In 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board argued four of the patents were invalid, as they didn't actually cover new inventions. This effectively prevented VirnetX using these particular patents against Apple.
On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion on two of the patents in question, specifically patent numbers 6,502,135 and 7,490,151. The opinion vacated and remanded decisions on both. The Court of Appeals disagreed with how the board had previously ruled, and in particular over the decision that these patents had unpatentable claims.
It is believed the board "abused its discretion in denying VirnetX the opportunity to file a motion for additional discovery as to real party-in-interest issues," a statement from VirnetX about the decision reads.
There were also issues with "many of the Board's positions as to the prior art lacked substantial evidence," and the belief the board "misconstructed the claims."
VirnetX CEO and President Kendall Larsen claims "We are extremely pleased with the Federal Court's decision which vindicates many of VirnetX's arguments about the Patent Board's decisions." Larsen also notes the decision follows a similar ruling on June 28 relating to patent 7,418,504, where a finding against three "unpatentable" claims were also vacated.
The decision could have a considerable impact against Apple, depending on what the courts allow VirnetX to do. As the patents were previously not able to be used to sue Apple, there may be a possibility VirnetX may reattempt the legal action, though at the very least, it strengthens its case to claim the $439 million Apple was ordered to pay for patent infringement.
In January, Apple was denied an appeal on the verdict, but it has also petitioned the entire Federal Circuit to rehear a panel discussion, in the hope it the appeal denial could be reconsidered.
Comments
You don't think Apple created FaceTime?
Google, Apple, Microsoft all operate much the same and don't respond to every claim of infringement. It's generally cheaper to ignore most of them, especially the little guys, try to get the patents of those want to pursue it anyway invalidated, and otherwise outlast/out-lawyer "inventors" who take it all the way to a trial court.
Licensing and royalties can get expensive and if outside companies and their attorneys thought any of the big techs would roll over and negotiate at the mere threat of a claim it would encourage more of them to bring'em.
...So they ignore anything that doesn't get filed in court.
Sure there's those "VirnetX's" out there who have really good attorneys and relatively deep pockets who don't go away easily, but for every company like that there's probably a thousand little guys and bit players all hoping to monetize some obscure invention but who end up going away, saving a company like Apple a lot more than they lose from the occasional claimant who wins in court.
That's big business, manage the risk.
Yes, Apple was the first to incorporate FaceTime into it's platform. However, they wilfully use VirnetX patented security software to secure it, and also to secure iMessage and VPNoD.
The CAFC vacated these PTAB judgments because Apple uses its influence in that arena to destroy patent holders who find it difficult financially to overcome the most richest company in the world with all its legal resources. But the time has now come for Apple to pay up: ~400 million as soon as the CAFC denies Apple's en banc request for re-hearing. And soon after that I expect Apple to pay VirnetX a subsequent ~600 million for patent infringement on current Apple products, and pay a $1.20 royalty going forward on all Apple internet connected products.
I have been an Apple user since 1986 - that's 33 years. But at some point I knew Steve Jobs mantra was bound to meet its destiny. And that destiny is VirnetX.
Besides the fact you have no idea what you're talking about, you use the same hyperbole as the anti-Apple media.
A funny read.
Apple created Facetime. Virnetx is nothing more than a patent troll.
I also bet you use knockoff iPhones while calling Apple a "thief".
At that's what the courts have been believing. I find it hard to believe, even in Eastern Texas courts, that at least 3 juries have found in favor of VirnetX if they didn't actually develop the technology Apple is using.
SAIC developed the security technology under a contract from DHS. DHS wanted commercial development of the technology because that would drive the cost of secure products down, and was in the best interests of the US Government. So they gave patent rights to SAIC.
But SAIC went through some upheavals of its own, splitting the company into LEIDOS and SAIC, and many executives left because the company seemed to be tearing itself apart. Some of those left were the ones in charge of the DHS security project and formed VirnetX, and SAIC let them take the patent rights with them.
So Apple executives decide they can take advantage of this turmoil and use the patented technology without paying any licensing fees. Their own engineers cautioned Apple that they were violating patents (there is written proof), but the Apple execs didn't care. When first challenged, Apple claimed they had invented their own technology and removed the offending code. But it was subsequently proven that Apple had done no such thing - they had tried and failed, and then put patent-offending code back in the product. They lied to the court.
Apple has tried every legal maneuver they can think of, and some that I'm sure must be illegal, to prevent VirnetX from prevailing in this patent case. From what I can tell, they had puppet companies try to manipulate VHC stock. And they had others file suits to invalidate the patents after they were told to cease and desist. Apple's actions have been willfully deceitful (as found by multiple juries) and not worthy of a company sitting on $50 billion in profits that THEY did not fully earn.
"Patent troll" indeed. What does one call a large company that uses its economic might to deny payment to smaller companies whose inventions they steal???