VirnetX asks court to ban FaceTime and iMessage, add $190 million to patent payout
Intensifying its patent infringement case against Apple, VirnetX has asked a Texas court to order an injunction against FaceTime, iMessage, and a VPN feature, while simultaneously asking for greater damage payments on top of $625.6 million awarded earlier this year.
Apple could potentially owe an extra $190 million, Law360 said on Thursday. During a Wednesday court hearing, VirnetX argued that while the requested injunction might seem extreme, irreparable harm was caused, and the extra damages are due to Apple being a "poster child" for unreasonable legal tactics.
Apple is still seeking a mistrial for the earlier jury verdict. The company argues that an injunction or royalty payments would be inappropriate, given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the four patents-in-suit. It also claims that that a questionable argument was made to the jury, and moreover that despite the jury's verdict, the court should rule non-infringement given a lack of evidence.
VirnetX's battle with Apple extends back to 2012, when the latter was initially ordered to pay out $368.2 million. That decision was tossed, but this year's retrial resulted in an even higher damage sum.
If it can't have VirnetX's lawsuit quashed, Apple is likely to reach some sort of agreement to avoid any interruption of FaceTime or iMessage. Both services are critical to Mac and iOS devices, and would make many customers upset if they suddenly disappeared.
Apple could potentially owe an extra $190 million, Law360 said on Thursday. During a Wednesday court hearing, VirnetX argued that while the requested injunction might seem extreme, irreparable harm was caused, and the extra damages are due to Apple being a "poster child" for unreasonable legal tactics.
Apple is still seeking a mistrial for the earlier jury verdict. The company argues that an injunction or royalty payments would be inappropriate, given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the four patents-in-suit. It also claims that that a questionable argument was made to the jury, and moreover that despite the jury's verdict, the court should rule non-infringement given a lack of evidence.
VirnetX's battle with Apple extends back to 2012, when the latter was initially ordered to pay out $368.2 million. That decision was tossed, but this year's retrial resulted in an even higher damage sum.
If it can't have VirnetX's lawsuit quashed, Apple is likely to reach some sort of agreement to avoid any interruption of FaceTime or iMessage. Both services are critical to Mac and iOS devices, and would make many customers upset if they suddenly disappeared.
Comments
"Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."
That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity.
...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms.
I'm not at all saying Sammy shouldn't be held accountable. They should be. But if Apple and their counsel is supposedly so firmly convinced that an injunction against Samsung was not only appropriate but mandated on firm legally supportable grounds it's a little weird now to for them to argue for all intents that Samsung really has a valid point about injunctions and patent validity issues. We should accept that left is right and right is left.
Besides, their patents will expire soon and subsequently be worthless. Utility patents last for 20 years (including software patents), design patents last for 14 years.
That's not how it works. You can contest the validity of the patent, but prior art is no longer a factor (since the US moved to "first to file") and their code isn't the issue, it's the function of the software.
I am just surprised that no one has taken you to task in leaving out a major element of this.
I would have expected that you would have at least made the attempt to be fair and indicate that just as in the Samsung case then the valuation of the verdict must also be treated the same in this case.
In other words, I am disappointed in you for not saying that VirnetX should get the same treatment as Apple VS Samsung. At the end of the day the judgement should be roughly $1,347.18, after lawyer fees, just as Samsung whittled down the 84 billion they initially owed Apple. (Amounts used are for entertainment purposes.)
I do not disagree with you that Apple can not have it both ways, but I am always surprised how you pick and choose when you throw drivel and detail only when it suits you. Usually when you are defending the world against Apple you put in that extra effort.
The point made was that Apple is arguing both positions, injunctions not an appropriate remedy in one case and in the other it should be plainly be automatic based on the law.
Determining if one company should pay more or less or anything at all in real dollars for infringement of any specific patent claim requires a lot more knowledge of the law and damages theory than anyone here possesses AFAIK and I'm certainly not qualified to compare damages in one case to those in another so I've no idea what pertinent detail was left out. But this much is obvious, or should be: When a company spends a great deal of energy and money and PR asserting one position as the only legal one it stands out like a sore thumb when a few months later they argue just the opposite.