Apple Won't Get Rehearing in VirnetX Patent Infringement Battle Dating Back to 2010, Court Rules

Apple will not be able to get a rehearing in its ongoing patent battle with VirnetX to argue that the patents it is accused of infringing are invalid, reports Bloomberg.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today rejected Apple's request to reconsider a November ruling that confirmed Apple infringed on two VirnetX patents.

virnetx apple
The patent dispute between VirnetX and Apple dates back to 2010 when VirnetX accused Apple's FaceTime feature of infringing on its intellectual property, and there are multiple lawsuits involved.

In this particular case, VirnetX was awarded $502.6 million in April 2018 after a court ruled that Apple's ‌FaceTime‌, iMessage, and VPN on Demand features infringed on four VirnetX patents related to communications security.

An appeals court later reexamined the ruling and determined that Apple had infringed on two VirnetX patents, but the other two counts were reversed in November 2019 and the $502.6 million award was vacated. The case was sent back to a lower court to determine whether revised damages can be calculated or if there will be a new damages trial, but the ruling was ultimately in favor of VirnetX.

At this time, with Apple's request for a rehearing on patent validity denied, Apple and VirnetX are awaiting details on the new damages Apple will be required to pay.

In a separate case, Apple was ordered to pay $440 million to VirnetX for similar patent infringement issues. Apple appealed that ruling multiple times as well, but an appeals court in January 2019 ruled in VirnetX's favor, leaving Apple responsible for a $440 million patent infringement fee.

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Air Pastel Feature

iPhone 17 Air Battery Capacity and Weight Allegedly Revealed

Monday May 19, 2025 2:22 am PDT by
Apple is expected to launch an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17 Air later this year, and while there have been plenty of rumors about the camera's overall design and thinness, we haven't heard any details about the device's weight and battery capacity until now. According to the leaker going by the account name "yeux1122" on the Korean-langauge Naver blog, the 6.6-inch iPhone 17 Air has a weight ...
Apple CarPlay Ultra instrument cluster themes 01

Apple's CarPlay Ultra Is Here – Does Your iPhone Support It?

Thursday May 15, 2025 5:17 am PDT by
Apple's recently announced CarPlay Ultra promises a deeply integrated in-car experience, but not all iPhone users will be able to take advantage of the new feature. According to Apple's press release, CarPlay Ultra requires an iPhone 12 or later running iOS 18.5 or later. This means if you're using an iPhone 11, iPhone XR, or any older model, you'll need to upgrade your device to access...
Apple CarPlay Ultra instrument cluster themes 01

Apple's 'CarPlay Ultra' Experience Now Available

Thursday May 15, 2025 5:07 am PDT by
Apple today announced that its next-generation CarPlay experience, now dubbed "CarPlay Ultra" begins rolling out today, starting with Aston Martin vehicles. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. CarPlay Ultra is now available with new Aston Martin vehicle orders in the U.S. and Canada. It will also be available for existing models that feature the brand's next-generation ...
Apple Glass

Apple Smart Glasses: Everything We Know So Far

Wednesday May 21, 2025 8:21 am PDT by
Google made waves yesterday by showcasing a set of lightweight smart glasses featuring deep Gemini integration and an optional in-lens display. The demo has reignited interest in Apple's own smart glasses project, which has been the subject of rumors for nearly a decade. Here's a recap of where things stand. Current Development Status Apple is actively working on new chips specifically...
WWDC 2025 Banner

Apple Announces WWDC 2025 Schedule, Including Keynote Time

Tuesday May 20, 2025 8:13 am PDT by
Apple today announced a more detailed schedule for its annual developers conference WWDC, which runs from June 9 through June 13. The schedule confirms that Apple's keynote will begin on Monday, June 9 at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, with a live stream to be available on Apple.com, in the Apple TV app, and on YouTube. During the keynote, Apple is expected to announce iOS 19, iPadOS 19, macOS 16,...
macOS 16 visionOS Inspired Feature 1

macOS 16: Everything We Know So Far

Tuesday May 20, 2025 7:31 am PDT by
The Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), Apple's annual developer and software-oriented event, is less than three weeks away. We haven't heard a great deal about macOS 16 ahead of its announcement this year, so we could be in for some major surprises when June 9 rolls around. Here's what we know so far about the next major update to Apple's Mac operating system. macOS 16 Name? Every year ...
Apple Intelligence General Feature

Report: Apple's Next-Gen Version of Siri Is 'On Par' With ChatGPT

Monday May 19, 2025 9:00 am PDT by
Apple has big plans to improve Siri over the next few years, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman and Drake Bennett report. Some Apple executives are now reportedly pushing to turn Siri into a true ChatGPT competitor. A next-generation, chatbot version of Siri has reportedly made significant progress during testing over the past six months; some executives allegedly now see it as "on par" with recent...

Top Rated Comments

oneMadRssn Avatar
69 months ago
I wish there was a way to get patents on obvious ideas invalidated.
There is. It's called Inter Partes Review ("IPR"). It's a process much cheaper than litigation that allows anyone to ask a special board at the USPTO to take a second look at a patent. Historically, that process has resulted in roughly 75% of patents they look at to be found invalid. Patent owners call them the patent death squad, while defendants usually hail them as cleaning up the system.

Apple tried to IPR these patents and did not succeed. If the patent death squad didn't rule them to be obvious, that should tell you how non-obvious they are.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)
coumerelli Avatar
69 months ago

This is how a rotten patent system works: patent trolls will win every single time.
"every single time" seems like an exaggeration to me. And like I've told my kids a million times, never exaggerate.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ruslan120 Avatar
69 months ago
Is it guaranteed that they're a patent troll? Inventing new IP and then selling it off or licensing is a valid form of business, especially for colleges and universities.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
69 months ago

Is it guaranteed that they're a patent troll?
Ruling not in Apple's favor? Patent troll.

That's how it works around here.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
I7guy Avatar
69 months ago
Pay up and let’s get on with life.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Carnegie Avatar
69 months ago

There is. It's called Inter Partes Review ("IPR"). It's a process much cheaper than litigation that allows anyone to ask a special board at the USPTO to take a second look at a patent. Historically, that process has resulted in roughly 75% of patents they look at to be found invalid. Patent owners call them the patent death squad, while defendants usually hail them as cleaning up the system.

Apple tried to IPR these patents and did not succeed. If the patent death squad didn't rule them to be obvious, that should tell you how non-obvious they are.
The PTAB did rule that the patents at issue (i.e. relevant claims of those patents) were invalid. It did so not based on them being obvious, but based on them being anticipated by prior art (i.e. Takahiro Kiuchi - The Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-Based Network on the Internet (1996)).

There were 4 patents which Apple was, in this case, found to have infringed - '211, '504, '135, and '151. The PTAB instituted an IPR against each of those patents. That means that the Board found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners (Black Swamp for '211 and '504, Mangrove Partners for '135 and '151) would be able to demonstrate invalidity for some of the claims at issue.

The Federal Circuit found that Apple hadn't infringed '211 and '504 - i.e., it found that Apple was entitled to JMOL on the infringement issue because no reasonable jury could, using proper claim constructions, find that Apple infringed the asserted claims of those patents. But, for the record, the PTAB found many claims of those patents invalid as anticipated by Kiuchi.

Regarding '135 and '151, the PTAB also found that the asserted claims from those patents (2 from '135 and 1 from '151) - as well as most of the other claims of those patents - were invalid as anticipated by Kiuchi. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded those decisions for a number of reasons that I won't get lost in.

However, among other issues, the Federal Circuit left it for the PTAB to consider the obviousness issue with regard to both patents. The PTAB hadn't previously needed to decide on obviousness because it had found anticipation. The Federal Circuit also left it for the PTAB to reconsider the anticipation issue with regard to '135. The PTAB heard arguments in these matters a few weeks ago.

So we don't know whether the claims at issue will ultimately be found, through IPR, to be invalid. But the point is that there's at least some reasonable arguments to be made that they are invalid.

To be clear, that most likely (barring an unlikely review by the Supreme Court) won't help Apple when it comes to the case which is the subject of this thread. Apple hasn't been allowed to make the invalidity arguments that it wanted to because of previous litigation, involving the same patents, between the parties. So even if VirnetX's asserted claims (from '135 and '151) are ultimately invalidated through the IPR process, Apple will likely have to pay damages based on having infringed them. What's left now is to determine how much Apple will have to pay.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)