Apple wins VirnetX patent appeal -- but one verdict awaits
Apple has been battling VirnetX in court for over a decade over patents, and on Thursday, the US Court of Appeals handed Apple a victory in the latest skirmish.
VirnetX trial
In 2010, VirnetX launched a legal dispute by alleging numerous instances of patent infringement related to FaceTime, VPN, and iMessage services. A Texas court fined Apple $368 million in 2012 for violating one patent, but the ruling was overturned almost two years later.
In the most recent update, Apple convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to invalidate the two patents by upholding a decision from the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, according to Reuters.
It might overturn the $502 million fine that Apple was ordered to pay in 2020. The company separately appealed that verdict, but the Federal Circuit still has to rule in that case.
"If the court upholds the [USPTO's] decision, we have a big problem," VirnetX attorney Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken said at the September hearing. "I don't think we have an enforceable judgment."
The case has gone through numerous appeals and rulings. With the Federal Circuit's decision on Thursday, Apple and VirnetX await a final decision in Apple's appeal of the initial verdict out of East Texas.
VirnetX had separately won a $302 million verdict against Apple in 2016, which was increased to $440 million later on.
Read on AppleInsider
VirnetX trial
In 2010, VirnetX launched a legal dispute by alleging numerous instances of patent infringement related to FaceTime, VPN, and iMessage services. A Texas court fined Apple $368 million in 2012 for violating one patent, but the ruling was overturned almost two years later.
In the most recent update, Apple convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to invalidate the two patents by upholding a decision from the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, according to Reuters.
It might overturn the $502 million fine that Apple was ordered to pay in 2020. The company separately appealed that verdict, but the Federal Circuit still has to rule in that case.
"If the court upholds the [USPTO's] decision, we have a big problem," VirnetX attorney Jeff Lamken of MoloLamken said at the September hearing. "I don't think we have an enforceable judgment."
The case has gone through numerous appeals and rulings. With the Federal Circuit's decision on Thursday, Apple and VirnetX await a final decision in Apple's appeal of the initial verdict out of East Texas.
VirnetX had separately won a $302 million verdict against Apple in 2016, which was increased to $440 million later on.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
The current patent law system that allows this to take place is broken, stifles innovation and hurts owners and shareholders of companies that actually make good products.
I've tried to explain it many times, being a small business patent holder who has both assigned patents to several large corporations, and brought legal weight to bear against a large multinational corporation, which I won. I'm sorry if you think this is "such a tired joke" just because you don't understand it. But I'm not going to explain it again because it falls on deaf ears of people who don't want to be confused by the facts. Patents are valid in whole or in part, or not valid in whole or in part. A suit over royalties or licensing has nothing to do with the patent office. Patents are property just like your car or house, with the same rights of ownership and the ability to buy or sell it.
Your trope about "the current patent system": it--the worldwide patent process virtually the same in every country--does NOT stifle innovation, and is NOT broken, as the 3.5 million patents filed every year demonstrates. The fact that an infinitesimally small number of patents ever become part of a lawsuit says the "system" works just fine.
There is plenty of additional information on this all over the Internet, for example the 2017 Bloomberg article "The Town That Trolls Built" or the 2021 Allen American (newspaper for a suburb of Dallas) article "Despite changes to the law, a Texas federal court has been a bridge for ‘patent trolls’ critics say" or the 2014 Electronic Frontier Foundation article "Why Do Patent Trolls Go to Texas? It’s Not for the BBQ."