Posted on 05/26/2016 12:39:43 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Infamous patent troll VirnetX has formally asked a Texas court this week to order Apple to stop providing its FaceTime and iMessage features to customers. The request follows VirnetX’s victory in court earlier this year to the tune of $625 million, which the firm wants to see increased by $190 million or more, Law360 reports:
At a post-trial hearing Wednesday, Texas technology company VirnetX argued that although an injunction blocking Apple’s popular video chatting and messaging features, along with a virtual private network on demand feature, may seem like a harsh remedy, it is necessary because of the irreparable harm Apple’s infringement caused the company. VirnetX also asked the court to increase the jury’s damages award by at least $190 million, arguing that Apple has been the “poster child” for unreasonable litigation tactics.
The patent fight between Apple and VirnetX over FaceTime and iMessage dates back to a 2012 ruling when Apple was ordered to pay $368.2 million in damages. That ruling was eventually thrown out, however, and a retrial followed earlier this year in which VirnetX requested $523 million in damages after Apple continued offering FaceTime and iMessage.
While VirnetX is now asking the court to block FaceTime and iMessage entirely and asking for even more money in damages, Apple is seeking a mistrial and an end to ongoing royalties:
Meanwhile, 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. The tech giant also sought a mistrial based on a purportedly inappropriate argument to the jury and argued that the company is entitled to a judgment of noninfringement, despite the jury verdict, based on VirnetX’s allegedly insufficient evidence.
VirnetX has similarly sought financial reward from other tech companies including Microsoft, which it reached a $200 million agreement with over the same complaint. VirnetX acquired the patent that it has based its complaint on in 2007 after it was originally filed in the late 90s. As ever, we’ll continue tracking the patent litigation, but I have a feeling Apple isn’t letting FaceTime or iMessage go away anytime soon. Apple’s video and messaging services between its devices have become even more crucial during the debate on privacy and surveillance in recent years.
You know damn well that court is biased with retards for the jury pool. There are literally thousands of stories on it in google.
It is a gold mine to shysters such as this. But keep on pretending you don’t know this!
I am no Apple fanboy. I am very critical of them and Sword here can attest, but this is BS.
“You know damn well that court is biased with retards for the jury pool. There are literally thousands of stories on it in google.”
Lol! Must be your cousins then, your posting bears a striking resemblance to that quality.
You go ahead and read your thousands of little google nuggets to get your “information”. The rest of us will just have to rely on court proceedings and evidence and judgements and stuff, as much as that pales in comparison to the legal knowledge of tech bloggers. OTOH I wonder what Apple pays for that patent troll PR to get cranked out? I might be able to do it as a sideline. I don’t have to believe it, I just have to pitch it at the gullible fanboys who will buy every word of the BS.
Hey, but cheer up. Apple has a history of gaming the courts to outlast their tiny victims. The theft may end up successful after all, you just need to be patient.
What part of "The United States Patent and Trademarks Office invalidated the in suit patents" during Apple's appeals do you fail to comprehend. I stated that above a couple of times. I am not referring at all to the trial where I made it clear that the Jury in East Texas Rocket Docket, the most plaintiff friendly courts in the country, did not have the expertise or understanding to comprehend even the first thing about a very technical issue.
Your dismissive and insulting attitude is getting in the way of your comprehension.
Keep up the good work bro.
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem, so I will make it simple for you to understand.
I don’t give a damn about Apple.
More likely a spinoff of the CIA. See: http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-apple/
Apple is trying to outlast VirnetX's ability to survive an endless round of appeals and PTAB reviews.
VirnetX has nothing to lose, that is the whole reason they were created.
I just don’t suffer fools gladly.
That must explain your butthurt over Apple being found guilty of IP theft. Oh, that’s right- it was the rube jury getting fooled by those trolls from VirnetX. Got it.
“VirnetX has nothing to lose, that is the whole reason they were created. “
Of course they do. Their stockholders can get wiped out.
Then, you must miserable every time you look in a mirror...
Why? Do you think I see your image when I look in the mirror?
SCOTUS has cases currently before it dealing with the CAFC and PTAB. VirnetX is looking for a ruling against either of them in any of the cases. There is also a race to see if the PTAB or EDT decision gets finalized first. This is germane as to whether or not the four patents will be enforced, not the Apple PR campaign about patent trolls, which in this case is the developers and owners of the security IP that Apple is stealing.
The evidence speaks in favor of Apple. They buy and license lots of IP. Your company buys and licenses nothing. They are the thieves in the big picture.
How do you explain this?
and note that $368,160,000 figure at the bottom. The one that gets tripled if the judge also decides that the infringement by Apple was willful.
I don’t think that the law abiding get stuck with a 9 digit judgment. Thieves do.
Of course this all depends on whether the EDT or the PTAB case gets finalized first. And whether the Supremes put the kibosh on the damage that the CAFC and PTAB have been doing to NPE inventors and patent owners. It’s not a done deal.
Looks like it was written by an illiterate.
“Looks like it was written by an illiterate.”
Yeah, well that illiterate and his pals hung a $368,000,000 judgment on Apple with that piece of paper. It’s the jury verdict from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The same case that your brilliant pals on this thread think vindicated Apple I guess. You might want to frame it. Enjoy.
I was kind of hoping for some substance, but oh well.
Well then the next time you get a court judgment against you at least you won’t think it’s anything to worry about. Is that tech blogger wisdom or something?
A plurality of computer nodes communicate using seemingly random Internet Protocol source and destination addresses. Data packets matching criteria defined by a moving window of valid addresses are accepted for further processing, while those that do not meet the criteria are quickly rejected. Improvements to the basic design include (1) a load balancer that distributes packets across different transmission paths according to transmission path quality; (2) a DNS proxy server that transparently creates a virtual private network in response to a domain name inquiry; (3) a large-to-small link bandwidth management feature that prevents denial-of-service attacks at system chokepoints; (4) a traffic limiter that regulates incoming packets by limiting the rate at which a transmitter can be synchronized with a receiver; and (5) a signaling synchronizer that allows a large number of nodes to communicate with a central node by partitioning the communication function between two separate entities.
There's nothing that Apple would need in that list of stuff.
Apple told the court that they were able to design around the VirnetX patents. When challenged to show how they would do it their experts produced nothing to defend the claim.
Apple internal memos were produced showing Apple’s inability to design around the patents and have their phones work right. Oops. Discovery is a bitch I guess. Even the hayseed rubes in East Texas could understand that.
Apple is using the VirnetX IP in their iPhones. The VirnetX expert witnesses were able to demonstrate this to the court. Apple is not paying VirnetX for this IP. They are simply stealing it. They were found guilty.
The software in question was developed by SAIC when they were producing communications security for the CIA and other intelligence agencies. VirnetX was spun off in order to market commercial versions. The software was created by SAIC/VirnetX and the IP rights are owned by them.
We see people referring to the defense of IP rights as “patent trolling”. Well if that’s the case let’s see them copy and sell some Apple software since IP apparently can’t be monetized and defended in their little universe. Let’s see how that works. Apple has been stealing. It’s a legal matter. A conscious business policy that too many large corporations have decided to use rather than license the IP that they want to use.
VirnetX can still be denied the right to collect on their own IP through gaming of IPRs at the PTAB. There is a bias against non practicing entities at the CFAC that effectively has been stripping IP developers of their property rights. Fewer people are going to innovate in this sort of environment.
Courts have begun to get wise to the “patent troll” excuse manufactured by the likes of Apple and judges are now addressing this phony construction in their decisions. There will be more of this to come. Property rights of inventors are going to be defended once again after a decade of having these rights trampled upon and their property taken at will. The “patent troll” excuse is nothing other than a demand to steal.
My, my. How do you live with yourself? Must be quite a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.