VirnetX reverses ruling invalidating patents used against Apple

VirnetX has won another battle in its patent lawsuit with Apple, convincing the US Court of Appeals to vacate and remand decisions by the US Patent Office's Trial and Appeal Board that invalidated two patents. The new ruling gives VirnetX more leverage in receiving the $439 million the courts declared Apple owes.

In the latest installment of the ongoing saga that is VirnetX versus Apple, VirnetX has secured a legal win concerning two patents that it has claimed Apple infringed. In 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board argued four of the patents were invalid, as they didn't actually cover new inventions. This effectively prevented VirnetX using these particular patents against Apple.

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion on two of the patents in question, specifically patent numbers 6,502,135 and 7,490,151. The opinion vacated and remanded decisions on both. The Court of Appeals disagreed with how the board had previously ruled, and in particular over the decision that these patents had unpatentable claims.

It is believed the board "abused its discretion in denying VirnetX the opportunity to file a motion for additional discovery as to real party-in-interest issues," a statement from VirnetX about the decision reads.

There were also issues with "many of the Board's positions as to the prior art lacked substantial evidence," and the belief the board "misconstructed the claims."

VirnetX CEO and President Kendall Larsen claims "We are extremely pleased with the Federal Court's decision which vindicates many of VirnetX's arguments about the Patent Board's decisions." Larsen also notes the decision follows a similar ruling on June 28 relating to patent 7,418,504, where a finding against three "unpatentable" claims were also vacated.

The decision could have a considerable impact against Apple, depending on what the courts allow VirnetX to do. As the patents were previously not able to be used to sue Apple, there may be a possibility VirnetX may reattempt the legal action, though at the very least, it strengthens its case to claim the $439 million Apple was ordered to pay for patent infringement.

In January, Apple was denied an appeal on the verdict, but it has also petitioned the entire Federal Circuit to rehear a panel discussion, in the hope it the appeal denial could be reconsidered.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

44 Comments

pslice 152 comments · 18 Years

About 5 years ago

Surprised this court wasn't in Eastern Texas. I don't know whether the allegations are true or not, but this stuff drives the cost of equipment to go up. Why doesn't Apple use technology they create or work with other companies to use? It's called a contract. $439Million is a lot of money.

AppleExposed 1805 comments · 6 Years

pslice said:

Surprised this court wasn't in Eastern Texas. I don't know whether the allegations are true or not, but this stuff drives the cost of equipment to go up. Why doesn't Apple use technology they create or work with other companies to use? It's called a contract. $439Million is a lot of money.

You don't think Apple created FaceTime?

gatorguy 24603 comments · 13 Years

AppleExposed said:

pslice said:

Surprised this court wasn't in Eastern Texas. I don't know whether the allegations are true or not, but this stuff drives the cost of equipment to go up. Why doesn't Apple use technology they create or work with other companies to use? It's called a contract. $439Million is a lot of money.

You don't think Apple created FaceTime?

...in a technological vacuum? Every product I can think of today was built on the advancements from others before them.

Google, Apple, Microsoft all operate much the same and don't respond to every claim of infringement. It's generally cheaper to ignore most of them, especially the little guys, try to get the patents of those want to pursue it anyway invalidated, and otherwise outlast/out-lawyer "inventors" who take it all the way to a trial court.

Licensing and royalties can get expensive and if outside companies and their attorneys thought any of the big techs would roll over and negotiate at the mere threat of a claim it would encourage more of them to bring'em.
...So they ignore anything that doesn't get filed in court.

Sure there's those "VirnetX's" out there who have really good attorneys and relatively deep pockets who don't go away easily, but for every company like that there's probably a thousand little guys and bit players all hoping to monetize some obscure invention but who end up going away, saving a company like Apple a lot more than they lose from the occasional claimant who wins in court.

That's big business, manage the risk.

sambatyon 2 comments · 5 Years

Apple is a global thief, Wait until they get hit with an additional $600 Million for Virnetx.

1STnTENDERBITS 460 comments · 8 Years

Jobs originally wanted FaceTime to be an open standard. I wonder if VirnetX was the roadblock preventing that. I also wonder at what point do litigation fees cost more than the verdict award. Apple seems to be copying Samsung's strategy of appeal... and if that doesn't work, appeal again.