Ok, now you finally admitted the jury is full of idiots, I am a designer / developer and I did enough of that type of software design before 2000 that I do not see how any of the specific features in the patent are useful or nonobvious. A "moving window of valid addresses" is not useful because it was and is impossible to reassign IPV4 addresses at the rate and quantity needed to make the window more than trivial size.
Basically the patents are a hodge podge of incoherent stuff that doesn't add up. Nobody can take it as a design spec and produce anything useful. The main claim, that the scheme prevents eavesdropping is completely bogus. A "seemingly random" scheme won't do that since the algorithm is known. A cryptographically random solution will, but that's not the solution they proposed.
The issue at hand is really more legal than the particular software design. Whether an administrative agency can overrule Article 3 court decisions, and about the use of differing standards by the courts and the PTAB. Congress opened a can of worms when they passed the America Invents Act.
With VirnetX v Apple it is also a matter of which case gets finalized first. If the PTAB gets finalized VirnetX is screwed, if the Eastern District case is finalized then Apple loses, at least for a minute. Apple’s deep pockets allow it to use the seemingly endless appeals and delays built into the system to its advantage. All of the big firms are using this strategy now.