daven

mortarman81mm said:

So, it's a common misunderstanding that when an appeal is made in the US courts it is the decision that is being appealed, but that is not the case. An appeal can only be made on the basis of an error in law. That is, the court of original jurisdiction made an error in how the law was applied (whether procedural or substantive) that materially affected the outcome of the case.

Consequently, VirnetX failed to gain Certiorari in its appeal to the US Supreme Court (USSC) of the Federal Circuit's decision because the USSC did not see either an error in law by the Circuit (i.e., it ruled for Apple appropriately), or any compelling points at law (VirnetX failed to prove there was any new law or legal theory) that required a decision/clarification for the guidance of US jurisprudence. 

In Apple's case with VirnetX, the Circuit Court adjudged that VirnetX's patents were rightfully declared invalid by the USPTO Tribunal in a different hearing from the one it originally conducted in the case between Apple and VirnetX. Consequently, as a matter of law, Apple could not be made to pay for infringing on patents that were invalid, and plaintiff had no case.

Patent trolls lose again.

bageljoey said:

I wonder if the Meta 3 will see a sales jump because of people who get interested in/excited by headset computing when looking at the Vision Pro but then aren’t ready to shell out $3k.