Apple ordered to pay $302.4M in damages to VirnetX in patent retrial

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    loquitur said:
    The problem with this case is multi-fold, aside from the venue.  Apple did indeed find prior art.  Their VPN implementation is all laid out in a paper by Kuichi:  https://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/96/ndss96/kiuchi.ps

    Together with workmen-like ideas expressed at the level of extant Internet RFCs, the ideas of
    security and anonymity were both "anticipated" by Kuichi and are garden-variety
    independent implementations of ideas obvious to cryptographers.
    This is not a truly novel idea like 2-key public crypto.

    Further, the government "expert agency" PTAB has already issued "final" invalidity decisions,
    although these are still subject to appeal, apparently.  So this is a case where parallel proceedings
    happen, one by district courts employing adversarial rhetoric to convince random non-technical juries, and the other allowing for the USPTO to overturn an overly-broad patent which they themselves issued based upon technical grounds.

    Also, the whopper monetary sums are based upon 2% of retail sales of the entire iPhone.
    So even though an iPhone contains implementation of literally hundreds if not thousands of ideas, one mistakenly issued patent can elicit an enormous effect.  Apple has been known to pay up to 1/2% of sales for entire portfolios of patents to the likes of Ericsson (for very basic cellphone technology), but are damned if they must pay even close to this amount for an a single already-deemed-invalid patent.

    The patent system is very broken.  It's a good racket to get the USPTO to temporarily approve some mere "improvement" idea (first-to-file) without citing relevant prior art.  How convenient. Then bamboozle a non-technical jury while the oversight obtains.

    Nice try but the appeals court already addressed this when Apple tried to say the same thing;

    "
    Apple argues that the asserted claims are anticipated by the Kiuchi reference. However, we conclude that the jury heard substantial evidence that at least one element of each asserted claim was missing from that reference. With respect to the ′135, ′504, and ′211 patents, the jury heard evidence that Kiuchi's proxy servers at least do not teach “direct communication” between a client and target computer, which is sufficient to defeat a claim of anticipation. J.A. 2343–44. Specifically, the jury heard expert testimony that Kiuchi's client-side and server-side proxies terminate the connection, process information, and create a new connection—actions that are not “direct” within the meaning of the asserted claims. J.A. 2334–35. VirnetX distinguished such proxy activities from the operation of NAT routers which—unlike proxy servers in the prior art-do not terminate the connection.

    Additionally, with respect to the ′151 patent, there was substantial evidence to support VirnetX's argument that Kiuchi fails to disclose the requirement that the DNS request be “sent by a client.” ′151 patent col. 46 l. 57. Apple argued that the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi meets the “client” limitation, but there was evidence that the “client” of Kiuchi is actually a web browser, a component that is distinguishable from the client-side proxy. See J.A. 2341. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Apple's JMOL motion with respect to invalidity."

    Furthermore, you're either being disingenuous about the idea of patent infringement as it applies in THIS case or you need to read more. You imply there is prior art. There isn't. Not as defined by the law. The appeals court looked closely at this already. . So instead of "How convenient", perhaps you should consider changing it to "How inconvenient", especially for Apple.

    Finally you claim, and imply that this is what happened in this case, that you would then only have to "bamboozle a non-technical jury while the oversight obtains". Not sure what
    non-technical jury is versus a technical one.  Would a TV tech qualify as a technical juror? How about a game developer? How technically oriented do you think the judges are? If this case goes to the Supreme Court, which of them do you think is technically capable? Sarcasm aside, a juror doesn't have to possess technical qualities in order to be qualified. The lawyers on each side are the ones that must be able to explain technical ideas to the jurors. Or to the appeals court. Or to the Supreme Court. It is quite ridiculous for you to imply the jurors were technically incapable of providing a decision. You're basically saying that VirnetX had lawyers that bamboozled a jury while Apple lawyers stood there watching.. Is that what you're saying? That Apple lawyers stood by while the other side "bamboozled" the jury? If it is, perhaps you should try to lay the blame at the footstep of Apple's legal department. But we can be fairly certain that didn't happen, can't we?




    singularity
  • Reply 22 of 29
    foggyhill said:
    East Texas, home of sack shit Juries... This will be appealed, off course.
    If you had bothered to read and understaned, you would know that this case has already been appealed. And that the decision of the original "sack shit" jury decision has already been upheld on several key points.
  • Reply 23 of 29
    fallenjt said:
    Apple will appeal to a higher court. This is BS to let companies file non-practice patents to make money on deep pocket corporations like Apple....Patent Trolls need to get tossed and banned from suing.
    Well who would've thought that the very first post would be like this.

    After appleinsider calls VirnetX a non-practicing entity, we should've expected a chorus full of "hell yeahs" to follow.

    How about this for a non-practicing entity. How about we all march over to the app store and look at "The Gabriel Collaboration Suite". Oh yeah, take a CLOSE look at the dev. 
    VirnetX?? It can't be. They're  'non-practicing entity'. Either that or appleinsider has non-practicing authors and/or editors, right?
    freshmaker
  • Reply 24 of 29
    chasm22 said:
    fallenjt said:
    Apple will appeal to a higher court. This is BS to let companies file non-practice patents to make money on deep pocket corporations like Apple....Patent Trolls need to get tossed and banned from suing.
    Well who would've thought that the very first post would be like this.

    After appleinsider calls VirnetX a non-practicing entity, we should've expected a chorus full of "hell yeahs" to follow.

    How about this for a non-practicing entity. How about we all march over to the app store and look at "The Gabriel Collaboration Suite". Oh yeah, take a CLOSE look at the dev. 
    VirnetX?? It can't be. They're  'non-practicing entity'. Either that or appleinsider has non-practicing authors and/or editors, right?
    I think the pros and cons of this argument might be valid **if** all these lawsuits were not happening in one small part of Texas. It's pretty clear something dirty and underhand is going on. Perhaps holding the case in , say, California, or anywhere else for that matter might alleviate the well-founded suspicions that something is not right here.
    watto_cobrabig
  • Reply 25 of 29
    How do companies like VirnetX get a hold of patents like this in the first place? Where is Apple when patents like this are up for sale? 
    big
  • Reply 26 of 29
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    jdw said:
    US law needs to immediately change to prevent all "non practicing entities" from suing over patents.

    Absolutely the worst idea ever.

    What you're essentially saying is if I invent something and patent it, that I'm no longer offered protection unless I start manufacturing. What's the point of a patent if anyone can use it freely because I'm not manufacturing anything?

    That would mean all independent "inventors" would no longer be protected since many of them would never have the resources to start manufacturing.

    Think of a chemist that comes up with a new material to make processor substrates. Intel starts using this idea to make all their chips. Guy goes to court and sues Intel, but it gets tossed out because he's a NPE. Guess he should have invested a billion dollars into his own fab so he no longer falls under the NPE label, right?

    Patents are assets. The holder can license it out, sell it to someone else or do nothing. It should be their choice, not the choice of another entity (Google, BTW, thinks that choice should be removed for some patents, but that's another discussion altogether).

    If the chemist above wants to license to Intel, Samsung and TSMC then that's his right. If he wants to sell it outright to Intel that's also his choice. If he's not sure of the value he can sell to a patent holding company and they can then shop it around for license fees (in this case the NPE is taking a gamble as they don't know the real value of the patent and if it will hold up in court).

    Im not upset at this win by VirnetX as they took their fight to court and won (they could have lost spectacularly if their patent had been invalidated). It's just a cost of doing business for Apple. It's to be expected that products as complex as an iPhone and iOS would be infringing a few patents somewhere. Apple would, of course, perform searches to see if ideas they're using are infringing, but you can't find everything.


    The only issue I have is with the district of East Texas. 
    But, in this case, seemingly their patent has already been declared invalid!! That coupled with east texas makes the whole thing crazy.
    big
  • Reply 27 of 29
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 137member
    chasm22 said:

    Nice try but the appeals court already addressed this when Apple tried to say the same thing;

    "Apple argues that the asserted claims are anticipated by the Kiuchi reference. However, we conclude that the jury heard substantial evidence that at least one element of each asserted claim was missing from that reference. With respect to the ′135, ′504, and ′211 patents, the jury heard evidence that Kiuchi's proxy servers at least do not teach “direct communication” between a client and target computer, which is sufficient to defeat a claim of anticipation. J.A. 2343–44. Specifically, the jury heard expert testimony that Kiuchi's client-side and server-side proxies terminate the connection, process information, and create a new connection—actions that are not “direct” within the meaning of the asserted claims. J.A. 2334–35. VirnetX distinguished such proxy activities from the operation of NAT routers which—unlike proxy servers in the prior art-do not terminate the connection.

    Additionally, with respect to the ′151 patent, there was substantial evidence to support VirnetX's argument that Kiuchi fails to disclose the requirement that the DNS request be “sent by a client.” ′151 patent col. 46 l. 57. Apple argued that the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi meets the “client” limitation, but there was evidence that the “client” of Kiuchi is actually a web browser, a component that is distinguishable from the client-side proxy. See J.A. 2341. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Apple's JMOL motion with respect to invalidity."

    [...elided...]

    This verbiage is from arguments before the CAFC which occurred before the patent office invalidated them.
    Here are the decisions which invalidate them before technical experts, not jurors:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/325056679/Appeal-2016-004435
    https://www.scribd.com/document/325056678/Appeal-2016-004466

    They come to the opposite conclusion, so these two legal systems are truly ships crossing at sea.
    If you were to play the odds, higher courts uphold technical decisions from USPTO 80%+ of the time.
    edited October 2016 big
  • Reply 28 of 29
    loopless said:
    I think the pros and cons of this argument might be valid **if** all these lawsuits were not happening in one small part of Texas. It's pretty clear something dirty and underhand is going on. Perhaps holding the case in , say, California, or anywhere else for that matter might alleviate the well-founded suspicions that something is not right here.

    Or, maybe it's that East Texas isn't filled with knee jerk "Patent Troll!" reactionaries, and judges and juries there are willing to listen to non-practicing entities, which have the same rights as practicing ones, instead of dismissing them out of hand because they only "own" a patent instead of actively using it.  As if there is something wrong with owning a patent and trying to license it.
    singularitydasanman69freshmaker
  • Reply 29 of 29
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 137member
    Technical correction to post #27.  These were two patents of VHC deemed invalid by PTAB that did not
    incorporate the Kiuchi references.  The correct citations are, invalidating the other 2 of 4 patents:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/323459997/IPR2016-00957-Instituted
    https://www.scribd.com/document/323459998/IPR2016-00693-Instituted

    As the neophyte may surmise, there are two independent systems which adjudicate patent validity --
    the PTAB, a higher administrative law court (and "expert agency") which can reverse initial mistaken issuances
    of the USPTO (their progenitor), and the CAFC (circuit courts) which can amplify and remand to juries
    the same issues, apparently.  

    Two enter the room, and one leaves.

    Meanwhile, computer programmers and engineers do what they do, which is often
    independent invention and implementation of ideas, whether obvious and non-novel,
    or not.   This again, independently of the patent "system".

    That ideas, the stuff that Thomas Jefferson said are but flames from a candle
    which should be shared to light another candle, are constricted by 20-year-monopolies,
    is, in my and many another opinion, hideous.





Sign In or Register to comment.