Judge denies new Apple & VirnetX trial, Apple will likely owe more than $1B

Posted:
in General Discussion
As Apple's legal battle with VirnetX over FaceTime patent infringement nears an end, Apple may find itself owing the Nevada-based security company over $1 billion in interest and royalties.

Apple to owe VirnetX more than $1 billion as judge denies request for a new trial


In a ruling published on Friday, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III rejected several of Apple's requests, including the demand for a new trial and limiting VirnetX's award to just under $114 million. According to Reuters, Apple had also requested that jurors should have been told that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had deemed VirnetX's claims "unpatentable," but the request was ultimately denied.

Furthermore, the judge confirmed that Apple owes $0.84 per unit for future infringements, which is what the jury set for a royalty. Apple was seeking no royalty, or $0.19 per unit, at various points in the trial and appeal process.

On Friday afternoon, VirnetX shares were up 10.8% -- 54 cents per share -- to $5.63.

In early January, Judge Schroeder denied Apple's motion for a new trial. In a parallel ruling, the judge granted but modified VirnetX's motion for interest payments and other fees assessed to Apple.

In October, jurors had found that Apple infringed upon two VPN patents held by VirnetX and would be required to pay a set royalty rate for infringements. Apple had argued that the company should pay a more reasonable royalty rate of 19 cents per unit. Ultimately, Apple has been ordered to pay $502.8 million in royalties.

VirnetX and Apple have been battling over VPN technology for a decade, with VirnetX's first filing in 2010. It alleged that Apple had infringed on four patents related to VPN on Demand technology.

In 2016, a jury had initially ruled that Apple would need to pay $625 million, but the decision was later tossed out by Judge Schroeder. Judge Schroeder had ordered two retrials, noting that jurors in the damages retrial were likely confused by multiple references to the earlier cases. The retrials ultimately cost Apple more than the original decision.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    Apple should drop Facetime which is buggy anyway.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 23
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,647member
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    edited January 15 davenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 23
    adbeadbe Posts: 23member
    Apple should drop Facetime which is buggy anyway.
    I've been using FaceTime to keep in touch with family overseas for about 8 years now.  It's been consistently solid throughout that time. I can't imagine how you're managing to break it.
    rob53bloggerblogDogpersonRayz2016GG1uraharawilliamlondonn2itivguydjames4242fred1
  • Reply 4 of 23
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,647member
    adbe said:
    Apple should drop Facetime which is buggy anyway.
    I've been using FaceTime to keep in touch with family overseas for about 8 years now.  It's been consistently solid throughout that time. I can't imagine how you're managing to break it.
    I agree. Also use it to make audio phone calls from my Mac. 
    Dogpersonn2itivguyfred1macguiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 23
    So that explains the late-day drop in stock price...
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 23
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,005member
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    Based on what?  Do you have access to all the trial evidence, and you personally reviewed all of it?  Did you read the judge's opinion and the parties' motions?   Do you know anything at all about patent law or civil procedure?  The answer to all of these quesitons is, of course, no.

    The fact that the USPTO deemed the subject of the patents "unpatentable" is irrelevant because the US Court of Appeals reversed the USPTO's decision.  The patents were valid, enforceable, and Apple infringed on them.  This case has been around for 10 years, and every single court and jury has ruled againt Apple.  
     
    End of story.




    edited January 15 CloudTalkinsdw2001williamlondongatorguyelijahgcloudguybeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 7 of 23
    maltzmaltz Posts: 277member
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple.

    Not particularly, but he is super pro-patent troll.  Just about every such patent case is filed in the Eastern District of Texas for that reason.  Wikipedia says he's the second most active patent judge in the country.
    cornchipwilliamlondonp-dograttlheddavenwatto_cobraMacProStrangeDays
  • Reply 8 of 23
    Used to be that a CEO who manages to lose a company $1 billion would be fired and replaced. Doesn’t matter if he was directly responsible or not. It happened during his watch.
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 9 of 23
    Used to be that a CEO who manages to lose a company $1 billion would be fired and replaced. Doesn’t matter if he was directly responsible or not. It happened during his watch.
    Technically, the company won't lose a billion.  Their insurance company will just make an E&O (Error & Omissions) payout.  It's a blanket business policy.  I have a $5 million E&O for my small company.  It's not that expensive for me, and for a company like Apple I'd imagine an E&O premium would be an even smaller expense, comparatively speaking.  
    Rayz2016lordjohnwhorfinn2itivguyraybop-dogmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 23
    Apple should drop Facetime which is buggy anyway.
    This judgment doesn't relate to FaceTime. Previously Apple had been found to infringe two patents with its redesigned FaceTime and two patents with its redesigned VPN on Demand. The infringement findings based on FaceTime were subsequently overturned by the Federal Circuit. What remains (at least for now) are findings that Apple infringed two patents with its redesigned VPN on Demand.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 23

    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    All four of the patents which Apple was originally found to have infringed have now been invalidated by the PTAB (i.e. all of the relevant claims have been). For two of those patents, the Federal Circuit has yet to decide whether to uphold the invalidations. So there isn't a final decision regarding their invalidity. Those are the two patents still at issue in this infringement case.
    edited January 15 Rayz2016p-dogmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 23
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,857member
    maltz said:
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple.

    Not particularly, but he is super pro-patent troll.  Just about every such patent case is filed in the Eastern District of Texas for that reason.  Wikipedia says he's the second most active patent judge in the country.
    Ok. Well that explains a lot.
  • Reply 13 of 23

    flydog said:
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    Based on what?  Do you have access to all the trial evidence, and you personally reviewed all of it?  Did you read the judge's opinion and the parties' motions?   Do you know anything at all about patent law or civil procedure?  The answer to all of these quesitons is, of course, no.

    The fact that the USPTO deemed the subject of the patents "unpatentable" is irrelevant because the US Court of Appeals reversed the USPTO's decision.  The patents were valid, enforceable, and Apple infringed on them.  This case has been around for 10 years, and every single court and jury has ruled againt Apple.  
     
    End of story.




    The PTAB's (i.e. the USPTO's) invalidations of claims from the two patents at issue were not reversed by the Federal Circuit. Rather, those invalidation decisions were vacated and the matter was returned to the PTAB to decide again whether certain claims were invalid. In July of 2020 the PTAB again decided that the relevant claims were invalid. VirnetX's appeal of the PTAB's decisions is now pending with the Federal Circuit. Those claims have been invalidated, but we don't have a final decision on them yet because VIrnetX hasn't exhausted its appeals. The same is true with regard to the infringement case which is the subject of this thread; we don't have a final decision yet because Apple hasn't exhausted its appeals. The question is, what will become final first: The PTAB invalidations or the infringement judgment? If it's the former, Apple may be able to get the infringement award thrown out.
    edited January 15 GG1teejay2012p-dogroundaboutnowdavenmuthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 14 of 23
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,673member
    flydog said:
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    Based on what?  Do you have access to all the trial evidence, and you personally reviewed all of it?  Did you read the judge's opinion and the parties' motions?   Do you know anything at all about patent law or civil procedure?  The answer to all of these quesitons is, of course, no.

    The fact that the USPTO deemed the subject of the patents "unpatentable" is irrelevant because the US Court of Appeals reversed the USPTO's decision.  The patents were valid, enforceable, and Apple infringed on them.  This case has been around for 10 years, and every single court and jury has ruled againt Apple.  
     
    End of story.




    This. All of this.  I actually know someone quite well who can confirm pretty much everything you’re saying. In fact, the individual very likely has direct knowledge and possible past involvement in this very case.  Apple is done here.  
  • Reply 15 of 23
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Used to be that a CEO who manages to lose a company $1 billion would be fired and replaced. Doesn’t matter if he was directly responsible or not. It happened during his watch.
    Lost one billion in a Texas courtroom (unsurprisingly). 
    Made hundreds of billions everywhere else. 

    Cook’s not going anywhere. 

    But let’s not pretend your problem is anything to do with this case. 


    raybop-dogmuthuk_vanalingammacguibeowulfschmidtgilly33StrangeDays
  • Reply 16 of 23
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,330member
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    > Apple loses every case
    > Legal system be biased against Apple, because Apple can never do any wrong. Apparently.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,392member
    I'm a person who usually trusts a judge's considered opinion, since they have access to facts and other evidence I'm not privy to.

    But as this judge is aware that the (neutral on the matter) Patent Office has found that Virnet X was granted patents that ought to be unpatentable, I have to wonder if the judge has arranged to get a cut of the award. There's little other possible explanation for this ruling, and I hope Apple will be able to find another judge that understands that the entire case is now moot.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    chasm said:
    I'm a person who usually trusts a judge's considered opinion, since they have access to facts and other evidence I'm not privy to.

    But as this judge is aware that the (neutral on the matter) Patent Office has found that Virnet X was granted patents that ought to be unpatentable, I have to wonder if the judge has arranged to get a cut of the award. There's little other possible explanation for this ruling, and I hope Apple will be able to find another judge that understands that the entire case is now moot.
    Please flag this. It is character assassination against a public figure based on absolutely no evidence at all.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    Sigh. Apple fans only believe the following patents are valid.
    1. Apple's patents.
    2. Patents relied on by Apple's competitors (Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Intel, Qualcomm etc).
    According to you guys 1. and 2. must be strictly enforced to the maximum intent possible to the absolute letter, intent and spirit of the law with the widest possible latitude and most severe punishment of infractions permissible. All other patents, trademarks and mutually agreed upon and legally entered into contracts? Not worth the paper they are written on especially when Apple decides not to adhere to them. Good grief, even when Apple clearly 100% outright loses - the Apple versus Microsoft lawsuit that absolutely determined that it is impossible to copyright a general UX/UI implementation - you folks still act as if Apple won and root for Apple to sue them anyway.

    That about sums it up, right?
    elijahgbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 20 of 23
    yuck9yuck9 Posts: 112member
    cloudguy said:
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    Sigh. Apple fans only believe the following patents are valid.
    1. Apple's patents.
    2. Patents relied on by Apple's competitors (Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Intel, Qualcomm etc).
    According to you guys 1. and 2. must be strictly enforced to the maximum intent possible to the absolute letter, intent and spirit of the law with the widest possible latitude and most severe punishment of infractions permissible. All other patents, trademarks and mutually agreed upon and legally entered into contracts? Not worth the paper they are written on especially when Apple decides not to adhere to them. Good grief, even when Apple clearly 100% outright loses - the Apple versus Microsoft lawsuit that absolutely determined that it is impossible to copyright a general UX/UI implementation - you folks still act as if Apple won and root for Apple to sue them anyway.

    That about sums it up, right?
    cloudguy said:
    rob53 said:
    Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

    How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?
    Sigh. Apple fans only believe the following patents are valid.
    1. Apple's patents.
    2. Patents relied on by Apple's competitors (Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Intel, Qualcomm etc).
    According to you guys 1. and 2. must be strictly enforced to the maximum intent possible to the absolute letter, intent and spirit of the law with the widest possible latitude and most severe punishment of infractions permissible. All other patents, trademarks and mutually agreed upon and legally entered into contracts? Not worth the paper they are written on especially when Apple decides not to adhere to them. Good grief, even when Apple clearly 100% outright loses - the Apple versus Microsoft lawsuit that absolutely determined that it is impossible to copyright a general UX/UI implementation - you folks still act as if Apple won and root for Apple to sue them anyway.

    That about sums it up, right?
    I find it funny that most call VirnetX every name in the book. Fact is they own, hold  the patent. Anyone wants to use it you pay. You don't we go to court and let them rule on it. Then you get the "They can cover it no problem. Problem is the stock holders lose money when Apple has to pay. 
Sign In or Register to comment.