Judge denies new Apple & VirnetX trial, Apple will likely owe more than $1B
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Made hundreds of billions everywhere else.
> Legal system be biased against Apple, because Apple can never do any wrong. Apparently.
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?