I skimmed through the patents. I doubt the jury could even get through an inkling of what these patents were about, much less, get a grasp of whether Apple infringed them or not. Apple has claimed from the outset they do not even use anything like what these patents do for their approach to the things claimed in VPN on Demand, FaceTime, or iMessaging software. There are so many different ways to accomplish the same things that there is no need to infringe someone else algorithms.
The SAME PATENTS were used against the Apple devices in an earlier suit which Apple lost, but the APPEALS COURT reversed the judgement amount and sent it back for apportionment based on what portion of the devices in question actually were drive sales. Utility patents are not allowed to claim the entire value of the device as an award. The judgement there, for the same patents was only $320 million and was deemed far too much by the appeals court for what they considered the damages and reversed the judgement. Now a jury has doubled down on damages on the same patents? Seems to me the Appeals court will look very poorly on that thumbing of the judicial noses at this already settled issue if the judge allows this dollar amount to stand. Not only that, the Jury added that Apple infringed these patents "willfully" which can triple the $626 million. These are VERY obscure patents that would have been very licensable had Apple known about them at all. Absurd!
Add also that TWO OF THEM were developed under US Government contracts, and are still partly owned by the CIA! What gives this VirnetX a right to sue as if they wholly owned them? They do not even use them except to sue people.
Could be dead patents under Alice. I think that Apple might have an IPR pending as well.
Well, a utility patent can and frequently does generate
damages based on the sale price of the entire infringing device. But it is not automatic, especially in the high tech space where a look is taken as to whether the patented feature found to be infringed drives the sales of the entire product. Here, I see that as being difficult to establish.