Appellate court rejects $368 million VirnetX patent victory over Apple
Patent holding company VirnetX's infamous $368 million win over Apple --?which most notably resulted in changes to FaceTime that riled consumers --?has been thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after review.
The appellate court held that the initial trial was "tainted" after incorrect instructions were given to the jury and expert testimony that should have been barred was instead allowed, according to the Wall Street Journal. The case will now be kicked back to a trial court.
VirnetX won the award in late 2012, securing a verdict that said FaceTime had infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 8,05,181 for a "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network." VirnetX had earlier asserted the patent against MIcrosoft, winning some $200 million in that case.
Following the verdict, Apple redesigned FaceTime's virtual private network functionality. The change cost Apple on multiple fronts, leading to over half a million customer complaints and costing the company an additional $2.4 million per month.
That was not enough for VirnetX, however, as the company swiftly filed another suit alleging continued infringement. They updated it in January of this year to add the iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops.
The appellate court held that the initial trial was "tainted" after incorrect instructions were given to the jury and expert testimony that should have been barred was instead allowed, according to the Wall Street Journal. The case will now be kicked back to a trial court.
VirnetX won the award in late 2012, securing a verdict that said FaceTime had infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 8,05,181 for a "Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual Private Network." VirnetX had earlier asserted the patent against MIcrosoft, winning some $200 million in that case.
Following the verdict, Apple redesigned FaceTime's virtual private network functionality. The change cost Apple on multiple fronts, leading to over half a million customer complaints and costing the company an additional $2.4 million per month.
That was not enough for VirnetX, however, as the company swiftly filed another suit alleging continued infringement. They updated it in January of this year to add the iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina display, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPod Touch with Retina display, and latest Mac notebooks and desktops.
Comments
Hahaha.
Only reason FaceTime didn't go open source like Apple promised originally and end up on other OS's was because of VirnetX.
These guys REALLY don't care about innovation or protecting patent holders.. it's a large group of lawyers that 'invest' in patents who's only purpose is suing large companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.
Like 5% of what they get goes to any true patent holders because they bargain basement shop for patents; paying for them as little as possible, then suing for as much as possible.
-Apple
Yes yes yes Yes YES YES YESSSS. (in my best Beavis/Butthead voice).
That's a battle won but the war isn't over yet. They still have to go to trial again. Here's hoping for a verdict that allows FaceTime to finally be what Apple originally imagined.
Don't you have to be actively using or developing the said patent to maintain it?
Or does the US Government allow companies to patent vague and ambiguous concepts for suing other companies who one day develop a concept into a product that kinda resembles said concept patent?
I'm happy to know that VirnetX got smacked, it's not like Apple really "won" anything yet. The verdict was tossed due to technicalities of the trial, not really about any substance of the alleged infringement. So basically, it goes back to square-one to go through it all over again... Samsung style.
I do hope VirnetX get's the hammer dropped on its head. They surely deserve it. Trolls.
Don't you have to be actively using or developing the said patent to maintain it?
No, a patent holder does not need to be a practitioner of the invention. They can try to license the technology instead.
Limited-time patent protection is awarded by the government in exchange for public dissemination of innovative ideas that otherwise might never be developed (or as quickly developed) or publicly disseminated. Once a patent expires, everyone is free to utilize the invention.
Keep filing appeals and tying them up in court until VirnetX agrees to settle for a few million dollars.
Too many courts in this country run by clowns for judges (in this instance, I don't mean the appellate court, but the trial court).
DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!
WOO-HOO!!!
The reason the appeal was successful was the judges felt that incorrect directions were given to the jury AND that the testimony of an expert witness should have not been allowed. There is still the chance that a different jury could award the same amount.