Apple may challenge $368M VirnetX patent suit ruling, SEC filing reveals
A notation in Apple's latest Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reveals the company has not recorded a $368 million court ruling that awarded VirnetX damages for patent infringement as a loss, and suggests a challenge to the decision is in the works.
Apple in November was ordered to pay $368 million to patent holdings company VirnetX after a Texas court found the tech giant to have infringed on a virtual private network (VPN) patent. As noted by Computerworld, Apple appears to still have ambitions to challenge the ruling.
"The Company is challenging the verdict, believes it has valid defenses and has not recorded a loss accrual at this time," Apple's SEC filing reads.
For its part, Apple appealed to lessen the damages award and request a new trial in February, but was rebuffed by the Texas court that heard the original case.
In response, Apple filed a motion on March 28, arguing that the case has not yet officially ended, as the court separated from the original damages ruling requiring the company pay VirnetX $330,211 per day until a settlement is reached.
"Because VirnetX's request for an ongoing royalty remains to be decided, the judgment in this case is not yet final or appealable," Apple counsel said in the motion.
This statement, along with the refusal to report the $368 million damages award as a loss, suggests Apple is planning to appeal the November decision.
It was reported earlier on Friday that plans to deprecate the "always on" VPN feature currently implemented in iOS have been reversed. Apple had originally announced that VPN changes would be made in iOS 6.1 to accommodate the court's initial order.
Apple in November was ordered to pay $368 million to patent holdings company VirnetX after a Texas court found the tech giant to have infringed on a virtual private network (VPN) patent. As noted by Computerworld, Apple appears to still have ambitions to challenge the ruling.
"The Company is challenging the verdict, believes it has valid defenses and has not recorded a loss accrual at this time," Apple's SEC filing reads.
For its part, Apple appealed to lessen the damages award and request a new trial in February, but was rebuffed by the Texas court that heard the original case.
In response, Apple filed a motion on March 28, arguing that the case has not yet officially ended, as the court separated from the original damages ruling requiring the company pay VirnetX $330,211 per day until a settlement is reached.
"Because VirnetX's request for an ongoing royalty remains to be decided, the judgment in this case is not yet final or appealable," Apple counsel said in the motion.
This statement, along with the refusal to report the $368 million damages award as a loss, suggests Apple is planning to appeal the November decision.
It was reported earlier on Friday that plans to deprecate the "always on" VPN feature currently implemented in iOS have been reversed. Apple had originally announced that VPN changes would be made in iOS 6.1 to accommodate the court's initial order.
Comments
Good.
Time for Apple's legal team to earn enough to pay for a few more decades of their services.
When you look at the growing list of Apple patents being invalidated, if I were one of Apple's lawyers, I'd start pressing to invalidate simple patents like this one. If all they have to do is make a simple change to not be in violation then I can't see how a different judge wouldn't question its validity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
When you look at the growing list of Apple patents being invalidated, if I were one of Apple's lawyers, I'd start pressing to invalidate simple patents like this one. If all they have to do is make a simple change to not be in violation then I can't see how a different judge wouldn't question its validity.
What do you mean start? That already happens. Articles aren't written as often, but we have seen a couple regarding Apple calling for reexamination. There was one on Motorola recently.
Seems any alleged offense would have taken place in Cupertino so the Texas court system should not be the proper venue. Apple could counter sue in a different court and claim venue then move the other case to a local court.