Apple wins partial reprieve over VirnetX $503 million patent case

AppleInsider

A US appeals court has upheld two rulings that Apple infringed VirnetX patents, but reversed the decision on two others. The nearly decade-long legal case must now go back a Texas judge who will consider further hearings.

FaceTime, an Apple technology at the center of one of VirnetX's patent infringement lawsuits

A Texas jury's previous decision that Apple must pay VirnetX Holdings Corp $503 million for patent infringement has been overturned. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that Apple had infringed two VirnetX patents regarding secure telecommunications technology, including FaceTime, used in the iPhone, but upheld two others.

According to Reuters, the decision means that the court is now returning the case to a Texas judge for further proceedings.

That judge may decide to recalculate the sum Apple is to pay VirnetX. However he or she may also conduct a new trial, limited specifically to determining damages.

This would mean that the case, first filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, in 2010, would be heading back to court.

Last month, a Federal Court panel suggested that the damages awarded could be affected by patent claims still being determined.

This is not the first time that Apple has had a sum of damages vacated. The first lawsuit in 2010 saw the company ordered to pay $368 million for infringing one patent, only for that to be reversed two years later.

A 2016 retrial saw the damages rise to $625 million, but that trial was claimed to be unfair because of jury confusion. Two more retrials followed before an April 2018 ruling appeared to conclude the case.

sflocal

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

cloudtalkin

sflocal said:

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

Patent troll?  Patent troll based on what exactly?←That's rhetorical btw.  I already know what you're going to claim.  I am just pretending to set you up to trot out the oft quoted and incorrect claim they don't have a product that uses the patents in question.  They do. They have a product that uses the patent so that kinda sorta throws a wrench into the works of that claim that I thought you were going to make.  

 Also, not really sure how you figure they got slapped in the face.  Pretty sure the verdict says Apple infringed on 2 of their 4 patents.  I can't figure how you're also making an assumption they have to go through it all again. They don't. The case is going back to district court, yes.  But it's going back there to determine if damages can be recalculated without a trial or if a new damages trial will be required.  It's not going back to district court to determine whether or not Apple infringed.  That has been adjudicated.
Right from the article above:

That judge may decide to recalculate the sum Apple is to pay VirnetX. However he or she may also conduct a new trial, limited specifically to determining damages.

None of this even takes into account the other separate Virnetx lawsuit loss that Apple is appealing.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-virnetx-patent-idUSKCN1P91UF
So not really sure Virnetx got slapped in the face... or anywhere else for that matter.

edited November 2019

gilly33

CloudTalkin said:

sflocal said:

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

Patent troll?  Patent troll based on what exactly?←That's rhetorical btw.  I already know what you're going to claim.  I am just pretending to set you up to trot out the oft quoted and incorrect claim they don't have a product that uses the patents in question.  They do. They have a product that uses the patent so that kinda sorta throws a wrench into the works of that claim that I thought you were going to make.  

 Also, not really sure how you figure they got slapped in the face.  Pretty sure the verdict says Apple infringed on 2 of their 4 patents.  I can't figure how you're also making an assumption they have to go through it all again. They don't. The case is going back to district court, yes.  But it's going back there to determine if damages can be recalculated without a trial or if a new damages trial will be required.  It's not going back to district court to determine whether or not Apple infringed.  That has been adjudicated.
Right from the article above:

That judge may decide to recalculate the sum Apple is to pay VirnetX. However he or she may also conduct a new trial, limited specifically to determining damages.

None of this even takes into account the other separate Virnetx lawsuit loss that Apple is appealing.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-virnetx-patent-idUSKCN1P91UF
So not really sure Virnetx got slapped in the face... or anywhere else for that matter.

What product do they have that uses the patent? Are they making any products and are they ‘developing and transferring technology’ according to the FTC? 

cloudtalkin

gilly33 said:

CloudTalkin said:

sflocal said:

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

Patent troll?  Patent troll based on what exactly?←That's rhetorical btw.  I already know what you're going to claim.  I am just pretending to set you up to trot out the oft quoted and incorrect claim they don't have a product that uses the patents in question.  They do. They have a product that uses the patent so that kinda sorta throws a wrench into the works of that claim that I thought you were going to make.  

 Also, not really sure how you figure they got slapped in the face.  Pretty sure the verdict says Apple infringed on 2 of their 4 patents.  I can't figure how you're also making an assumption they have to go through it all again. They don't. The case is going back to district court, yes.  But it's going back there to determine if damages can be recalculated without a trial or if a new damages trial will be required.  It's not going back to district court to determine whether or not Apple infringed.  That has been adjudicated.
Right from the article above:

That judge may decide to recalculate the sum Apple is to pay VirnetX. However he or she may also conduct a new trial, limited specifically to determining damages.

None of this even takes into account the other separate Virnetx lawsuit loss that Apple is appealing.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-virnetx-patent-idUSKCN1P91UF
So not really sure Virnetx got slapped in the face... or anywhere else for that matter.

What product do they have that uses the patent? Are they making any products and are they ‘developing and transferring technology’ according to the FTC? 

Go to their website.  The info is there. https://www.virnetx.com/ 

philboogie

gilly33 said:

What product do they have that uses the patent? Are they making any products and are they ‘developing and transferring technology’ according to the FTC? 

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gabriel-collaboration-suite/id1022829557?ls=1

philboogie

sflocal said:

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

I don't think anyone agrees to companies using IP they don't own. Including when it's Apple. Pity you (and 5x like) think it's ok for Apple to steal, except when the competition does so.

joephlibeetz

“Picasso had a saying – ‘good artists copy, great artists steal‘ – and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” – Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson

It is my understanding that Apple (used to) fly a pirate flag at their headquarters, symbolizing the company's disregard for playing by the rules and fair play with respect to other people's ideas.  This lawsuit will be 10 years old before it is settled.  Apple has lost 4 times at jury trials and has successfully delayed and appealed the damages VHC wanted originally down from about $6 per infringing device to $1.20 for a product that can cost over $1000.  This latest ruling by the CAFC has removed 34 million iPhones from the calculation of damages from a total jury award of $502 Million.  So VHC should still get about $460M plus interest when it is finally settled, but you can't trust the courts to be logical or to move quickly.  VHC's relavent patents will start to expire in a few years because they have been tied up in litigation for most of their life, so the company hasn't been able to monetize them...potentially hundreds of companies that make products that access the internet have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the resolution of Apple v. VHC = lost opportunity for VHC.   Why should they sign a license and pay VHC if Apple can show them the way to steal without consequences?