A Texas jury has issued a verdict for VirnetX Inc., finding that Apple infringed claims from four patents through certain versions of the FaceTime and VPN on Demand features offered on iOS and macOS devices (6:12-cv-00855). The April 10 verdict also included a damages award of $502.6M, while a second verdict issued on April 12 included a finding of willfulness. However, all of the claims that Apple was found to infringe have been invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by Apple and other parties, with two of the patents also invalided through reexamination. Appeals of those decisions are currently pending before the Federal Circuit.
A Texas judge has issued a final judgment in one of VirnetX Inc.’s two cases against Apple. In an order issued on September 29 and unsealed on October 13, District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III awarded enhanced damages, attorney fees, and interest to VirnetX, bringing the total judgment to $439M, up from the $302M in damages established by a September 2016 jury verdict (6:10-cv-00417). The judgment follows a significant loss for VirnetX before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which in June cancelled all of the claims Apple had been found to infringe from both of the patents that went to trial in two inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by Black Swamp IP, LLC (IPR2016-00693, IPR2016-00957). The Board has also collectively cancelled all claims from both patents in four inter partes reexaminations filed by Apple and Cisco. Federal Circuit appeals of both IPR decisions and three of the reexaminations are currently pending.
Acacia Research Corporation has announced a 22 percent revenue increase for fiscal year 2016 and a dip in revenue for Q4, disclosing losses for both the quarter and the year that were significantly smaller than those in 2015. Meanwhile, VirnetX Holding Corporation reported stagnant revenue for 2016 along with a loss of its own, as it continues to experience setbacks in its sole litigation campaign due to post-trial rulings and the invalidation of multiple asserted patents.
A Texas jury has issued a verdict against Apple in a lawsuit brought by VirnetX Inc., finding that the company infringed a pair of patents (7,418,504; 7,921,211) through its FaceTime feature (6:10-cv-00417). The September 30 verdict included a $302M damages award that covered FaceTime, as well as Apple’s VPN on Demand feature, which had been the subject of another infringement verdict handed down earlier in this same case. The current verdict comes after a late July win for Apple in another suit (6:12-cv-00855) brought against it by VirnetX; there, a Texas judge reversed a $625M jury verdict and granted Apple a new trial.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims from two VirnetX Inc. patents (8,850,009; 8,868,705) in multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by Apple. In two final decisions issued on August 30, and one issued on September 8, the PTAB ruled that asserted claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-25 of the ‘009 patent (IPR2015-00812) and all 34 claims of the ‘705 patent (IPR2015-00810, IPR2015-00811) are invalid as obvious over various combinations of prior art. While these patents have not yet been involved in litigation, they belong to the same family as four other patents that the NPE has asserted against Apple, which led to a $625 infringement verdict issued in February 2016 that was overturned in July.
A Texas judge has overturned VirnetX Inc.’s $625M infringement verdict against Apple. In an order issued on July 29, District Judge Robert Schroeder III granted a motion for new trial filed by Apple, accepting the company’s arguments that the consolidation of two cases involving different versions of the same accused features had resulted in undue prejudice and confusion to the jury (6:10-cv-00417, 6:12-cv-00855). Judge Schroeder ruled that prejudice had indeed resulted from repeated mentions of the first infringement verdict at trial due to the “incredibly similar issues” shared by the cases. The complexity of the issues involved, Judge Schroeder continued, “magnified the risk of deference” to the first case, especially since the jury had been tasked with relying on the first verdict for the issue of willfulness but ignoring it for others. Confusion had also likely resulted from the fact that the earlier verdict had been partially reversed on appeal. Judge Schroeder concluded by reversing the court’s consolidation order, bifurcating the issue of willfulness in both cases, and scheduling jury selection in September for the retrial of the first-filed case.