Apple Pays VirnetX $454 Million for Patent Infringement After U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Apple's Appeal

Apple has paid VirnetX a total of $454,033,859.87 following the conclusion of a long-running patent infringement battle, VirnetX announced today.

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, Apple was ordered to pay $302 million in October 2016, but with interest and other costs included, the judgement was increased to $440 million. Though Apple appealed the $440 million award many times, courts have continually ruled in VirnetX's favor.

Most recently, Apple attempted to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal, but the Supreme Court in February 2020 declined to intervene.

Apple claimed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had canceled "key parts" of many of the patents involved in the case, but the courts rescinded that cancelation, leaving Apple responsible for the $440 million payment.

This is just one of two VirnetX cases that Apple has been fighting. In the second case, VirnetX was awarded $502 million, but the ruling was partially overturned last year and sent back to the lower courts to determine new damages. Apple in February attempted to get a rehearing to determine patent validity, but was denied.

Popular Stories

maxresdefault

Apple Shows Off a Key Reason to Upgrade to the iPhone 17

Saturday February 7, 2026 9:26 am PST by
Apple today shared an ad that shows how the upgraded Center Stage front camera on the latest iPhones improves the process of taking a group selfie. "Watch how the new front facing camera on iPhone 17 Pro takes group selfies that automatically expand and rotate as more people come into frame," says Apple. While the ad is focused on the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max, the regular iPhone...
wwdc sans text feature

Apple Rumored to Announce New Product on February 19

Thursday February 5, 2026 12:22 pm PST by
Apple plans to announce the iPhone 17e on Thursday, February 19, according to Macwelt, the German equivalent of Macworld. The report, citing industry sources, is available in English on Macworld. Apple announced the iPhone 16e on Wednesday, February 19 last year, so the iPhone 17e would be unveiled exactly one year later if this rumor is accurate. It is quite uncommon for Apple to unveil...
Finder Siri Feature

Why Apple's iOS 26.4 Siri Upgrade Will Be Bigger Than Originally Promised

Friday February 6, 2026 3:06 pm PST by
In the iOS 26.4 update that's coming this spring, Apple will introduce a new version of Siri that's going to overhaul how we interact with the personal assistant and what it's able to do. The iOS 26.4 version of Siri won't work like ChatGPT or Claude, but it will rely on large language models (LLMs) and has been updated from the ground up. Upgraded Architecture The next-generation...
apple wallet drivers license feature iPhone 15 pro

Apple Says These 7 U.S. States Plan to Offer iPhone Driver's Licenses

Monday February 9, 2026 6:24 am PST by
In select U.S. states, residents can add their driver's license or state ID to the Apple Wallet app on the iPhone and Apple Watch, and then use it to display proof of identity or age at select airports and businesses, and in select apps. The feature is currently available in 13 U.S. states and Puerto Rico, and it is expected to launch in at least seven more in the future. To set up the...
14 inch MacBook Pro Keyboard

New MacBook Pros Could Now Arrive in March

Sunday February 8, 2026 6:02 am PST by
New MacBook Pro models with the M5 Pro and M5 Max chips could arrive as soon as Monday, March 2, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. In today's "Power On" newsletter, Gurman said that the release of new MacBook Pro models is tied to the release of macOS Tahoe 26.3. The launch is said to be slated for as early as the week of March 2. He added that the M4 Pro and M4 Max models on sale today...

Top Rated Comments

Art Mark Avatar
77 months ago
They are a joke of a company - Virnetz...more like a Virus than some other things out there.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
eoblaed Avatar
77 months ago
I can see someone filling that out: "... and eighty .. seven .. cents."

Wow, that's big check to write.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
farewelwilliams Avatar
77 months ago
Virnetx readying their next set of their master patent troll plan
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Carnegie Avatar
77 months ago

Kinda wonder how much actual revenue the company has made compared to how much they've won in lawsuits.
VirnetX has very little revenue on a year-to-year basis. It's had less than $10 million total over the last 10 reported years. It loses $10-30 million every year.

It's managed to survive with money it received in 2014 and 2010 from settling with Microsoft ($223 million total) and with paid-in capital. It won't even get to keep all of this payment from Apple. It effectively bought the rights to the IP in question and has to pay part of what it generates from that IP to the previous owner.

The company's share price has basically reflected the market's assessment of what it will be able to get from Apple in these lawsuits. Those actions aside, the company really isn't worth much. So you consider the likelihood that VirnetX will ultimately get paid from those actions, and how much it's likely to get paid, and factor in expenses it will have... and you get an assessment of its value.

That's why its market cap is still only a little over $400 million, even though it got this payment and has won another judgment against Apple (though the damages in that case have to be reconsidered). It's also why its share price wasn't being hit like many other equities were in the broader market sell off.

...

Most recently, Apple attempted to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal ('https://www.macrumors.com/2020/02/24/u-s-supreme-court-appeal-440-million-virnetx-case/'), but the Supreme Court in February 2020 declined to intervene.

Apple claimed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had canceled "key parts" of many of the patents involved in the case, but the courts rescinded that cancelation, leaving Apple responsible for the $440 million payment.

...
The court (i.e. the Federal Circuit) had not rescinded the cancelation of the patents (i.e. patent claims) at issue in the petition to the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit had upheld the invalidation of those patents. (There were invalidations of 2 other patents which the Federal Circuit sent back to the PTAB to be reconsidered.) Those patents, which are part of what Apple was found to have infringed and ordered to pay damages base on (in the first case, for which it has now paid the judgment), are still invalid. But Apple has had to pay damages based on them regardless.

Part of what Apple wanted the Supreme Court to do was give effect to the invalidation of those patents, or instruct the Federal Circuit to consider whether it should give effect to those invalidations, in the infringement case we're talking about.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cmaier Avatar
77 months ago

Your time wasn't wasted. I learned a few things along the way.
Thanks for letting me know. I sort of gave up :-)
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
zorinlynx Avatar
77 months ago
It's odd that this hasn't affected AAPL stock price much. $454 million is a whole...

400th...

of its cash hoard. Nevermind. I started writing this post before I looked up the numbers and can't believe just how massive AAPL is.


Odd thing to call a company that just received a check for $454 Million.
How much debt do they already have? It may not be that much in the end. After all they've been fighting this lawsuit for a while.


Apple tends to fight-to-the-death on stuff like this when other companies just pay the licensing fee. I don't know if that attitude comes from the top or from the legal department. Apple's lawyers have got to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em so I suspect top management or Cook himself orders them to soldier on even if they know the game is over.
It's because a lot of times these patents are ********.

Some method of doing something gets patented, but not used for anything. Then a company like Apple comes up with the same tech independently and makes an actual product. Then they get sued for it.

I'm not saying that's the case here, just saying it's important to defend yourself against lawsuits from these companies that just stockpile patents and don't make anything with them. You never know what might be buried in some patent when coming up with a new (to you) way of doing something.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)