The CAFC threw out the amount solely because they created in that order a new way to calculate damages. The case was remanded for a new trial on the level of damages and whether Facetime also was infringing. Apple was held to be infringing on VHC’s patent on VPN on demand. Apple is a thief, but it will eventually have to pay up. Apple will drag out these proceeding for years in hopes that whoever they are stealing intellectual property from will go bankrupt before they have to pay. By the way, many people believe the new jury award will be higher than the original $368 million because VHC’s patents have be found not to be invalid, Apple is willfully infringing and the attempt by Apple to do a workaround cost them more than $20 million per month and provided degraded service.
Exactly right. Oh those pesky details. Apple may actually end up paying MORE. They probably have spent at least that much in lawyer fees, between appeals and IPR filings.(all but one have been rejected by the PTAB)
I really doubt your claim that the trial court will INCREASE any award considering the basis of the Appeals Court specified that the reversed errors had to do with the instructions on how to calculate the award, which the jury award based on the total price of the devices in suit:
"The law requires patentees to apportion the royalty down to a reasonable estimate of the value of its claimed technology, or else establish that its patented technology drove demand for the entire product," Chief Judge Sharon Prost wrote for a two-judge panel. A third judge resigned before the decision was issued.
It would be extremely difficult for VirtnetX to claim that Macs, iPod touch, iPads, and iPhones are purchased based only on the fact they have FaceTime capability. . . and not for any other reason. That is the bar they Appellate court set to even keep the amount where it was set because the jury was incorrectly instructed.
Your claim of "willfully" infringing is specious as that was not found in trial. willful is a legal term and requires a determination by the jury, not you. We are not noting any "degraded service" that you claim.