VirnetX asks court to ban FaceTime and iMessage, add $190 million to patent payout

Intensifying its patent infringement case against Apple, VirnetX has asked a Texas court to order an injunction against FaceTime, iMessage, and a VPN feature, while simultaneously asking for greater damage payments on top of $625.6 million awarded earlier this year.

Apple could potentially owe an extra $190 million, Law360 said on Thursday. During a Wednesday court hearing, VirnetX argued that while the requested injunction might seem extreme, irreparable harm was caused, and the extra damages are due to Apple being a "poster child" for unreasonable legal tactics.

Apple is still seeking a mistrial for the earlier jury verdict. The company argues that an injunction or royalty payments would be inappropriate, given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the four patents-in-suit. It also claims that that a questionable argument was made to the jury, and moreover that despite the jury's verdict, the court should rule non-infringement given a lack of evidence.

VirnetX's battle with Apple extends back to 2012, when the latter was initially ordered to pay out $368.2 million. That decision was tossed, but this year's retrial resulted in an even higher damage sum.

If it can't have VirnetX's lawsuit quashed, Apple is likely to reach some sort of agreement to avoid any interruption of FaceTime or iMessage. Both services are critical to Mac and iOS devices, and would make many customers upset if they suddenly disappeared.

22 Comments

doggone 400 comments · 18 Years

About 8 years ago

Buy them. Their market cap is 300M. Then they will own the patents.

spanading 74 comments · 12 Years

Request full details of their supposedly infringed patent, including code/underlying logic. Given the secretive nature of this company it should stop them dead.

gatorguy 24609 comments · 13 Years

Something that stands out in Apple's response:
"Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity.

...and of course several folks here won't like the mention of Apple's defense strategy as it goes against what they've said in other courtrooms.

cashxx 114 comments · 12 Years

gatorguy said:

Something that stands out in Apple's response:
"Apple argued that in light of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions rejecting the four patents-in-suit, an injunction would be inappropriate, as would any ongoing royalty based on FaceTime, iMessage and virtual private network on demand features."

That's the same essential argument Samsung made in the Apple/Samsung trial. No injunction or damages because of patent validity questions. Apple of course as we know vehemently argued that an injunction should be appropriate, just as VirnetSX does now, as should damages since the patents were valid at the time of the trial and still have not had a final FINAL ruling of invalidity.

But the patents were rejected by the US patent office in this case. Apple's patents are valid and Samdung and any other company have no right to copy!