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

Nineth iOS 19 Feature

iOS 19 Beta is a Month Away With These New Features for Your iPhone

Thursday May 8, 2025 7:37 am PDT by
The first iOS 19 beta is just one month away, and there are already many new features and changes that are expected with it. Apple should seed the first iOS 19 beta to developers immediately following the WWDC 2025 keynote, which is scheduled for Monday, June 9. Following beta testing, the update should be released to the general public in September. Below, we recap the key iOS 19 rumors...
Foldable iPhone 2023 Feature Homescreen

Apple's Foldable iPhone Display Tech May Set New Industry Standard

Thursday May 8, 2025 3:29 am PDT by
Apple's upcoming foldable iPhone will feature a new type of display panel developed by Samsung that has never been used in a foldable product, claims a source with links to Apple's supply chain. According to the account yeux1122 on the Korean Naver blog, the foldable iPhone will use a custom display process for which Apple will hold branding trademark rights, and that meets Apple's stringent ...
siri glow

iPhone Users Now Able to Submit Claims in $95 Million Siri Spying Lawsuit

Wednesday May 7, 2025 11:40 am PDT by
If you owned a Siri-compatible device and had an accidental Siri activation between September 17, 2014 and December 31, 2024, you could be eligible for a payment from Apple as part of a class action lawsuit settlement. Apple in January agreed to pay $95 million to settle a class action lawsuit involving Siri spying accusations, and a website to distribute the funds has now been set up and...
iOS 18

Here Are Apple's Full iOS 18.5 Release Notes

Tuesday May 6, 2025 2:17 pm PDT by
Apple today seeded the release candidate version of iOS 18.5 to developers and public beta testers, giving us a look at the final version of the update that will be provided to the public next week. With the release candidate, Apple provided release notes, so we have a more complete look at the new features that are included in the update, including those that weren't found during the beta...
Mayday Calendar

Apple Acquisition Hints at Upgraded Calendar App on iOS 19 or Beyond

Friday May 9, 2025 9:13 am PDT by
Apple acquired Canadian startup Mayday Labs in April 2024, according to a European Commission listing, spotted by French blog MacGeneration. The acquisition had not received widespread attention from tech publications until now. Apple is legally required to report certain acquisitions to the European Commission, under the terms of the EU's Digital Markets Act. Mayday Labs founder Jeremy...
fortnite apple featured

Epic Games Submits Fortnite to U.S. App Store

Friday May 9, 2025 9:57 am PDT by
As promised, Epic Games today submitted Fortnite to the U.S. App Store, and if approved by Apple, it will mark the first time that the Fortnite app has been available in the United States since 2020. Fortnite will include options to purchase in-app currency from the web rather than through in-app purchase, which is what got the game banned to begin with. This time, though, Apple has been...
airpods pro purple

Apple's Camera Equipped AirPods and Apple Watch Could Launch as Soon as 2027

Thursday May 8, 2025 10:14 am PDT by
Apple is working on versions of the AirPods and Apple Watch that incorporate a camera, and the devices could be ready to launch sometime around 2027, reports Bloomberg. Apple has developed a chip codenamed "Nevis" that will be used for its camera-equipped Apple Watch, while a chip codenamed "Glennie" will be incorporated into the AirPods. Apple is aiming to have the chips ready "by around...

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)