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.
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
Phishing attacks taking advantage of Apple's password reset feature have become increasingly common, according to a report from KrebsOnSecurity. Multiple Apple users have been targeted in an attack that bombards them with an endless stream of notifications or multi-factor authentication (MFA) messages in an attempt to cause panic so they'll respond favorably to social engineering. An...
iOS 18 will give iPhone users greater control over Home Screen app icon arrangement, according to sources familiar with the matter. While app icons will likely remain locked to an invisible grid system on the Home Screen, to ensure there is some uniformity, our sources say that users will be able to arrange icons more freely on iOS 18. For example, we expect that the update will introduce...
At least some Apple software engineers continue to believe that iOS 18 will be the "biggest" update in the iPhone's history, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. Below, we recap rumored features and changes for the iPhone. "The iOS 18 update is expected to be the most ambitious overhaul of the iPhone's software in its history, according to people working on the upgrade," wrote Gurman, in a r...
Apple today announced that its 35th annual Worldwide Developers Conference is set to take place from Monday, June 10 to Friday, June 14. As with WWDC events since 2020, WWDC 2024 will be an online event that is open to all developers at no cost. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. WWDC 2024 will include online sessions and labs so that developers can learn about new...
Apple may be planning to add support for "custom routes" in Apple Maps in iOS 18, according to code reviewed by MacRumors. Apple Maps does not currently offer a way to input self-selected routes, with Maps users limited to Apple's pre-selected options, but that may change in iOS 18. Apple has pushed an iOS 18 file to its maps backend labeled "CustomRouteCreation." While not much is revealed...
The next-generation iPad Pro will feature a landscape-oriented front-facing camera for the first time, according to the Apple leaker known as "Instant Digital." Instant Digital reiterated the design change earlier today on Weibo with a simple accompanying 2D image. The post reveals that the entire TrueDepth camera array will move to the right side of the device, while the microphone will...
Apple today released macOS Sonoma 14.4.1, a minor update for the macOS Sonoma operating system that launched last September. macOS Sonoma 14.4.1 comes three weeks after macOS Sonoma 14.4. The macOS Sonoma 14.4.1 update can be downloaded for free on all eligible Macs using the Software Update section of System Settings. There's also a macOS 13.6.6 release for those who...
iOS 18 will allow iPhone users to place app icons anywhere on the Home Screen grid, according to sources familiar with development of the software update. This basic feature has long been available on Android smartphones. While app icons will likely remain locked to an invisible grid system on the Home Screen, our sources said that users will be able to arrange icons more freely on iOS 18....
Top Rated Comments
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.
That's how it works around here.
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.