Tag - VirnetX
VirnetX has asked a Texas court to force Apple to stop offering its FaceTime and iMessage services to its users, following its legal victory against the computer producer earlier this year. At the same time, VirnetX is not happy with the $625 million verdict it has already got in terms of damages for Apple infringing on its patents in February, with it wanting the court to add at least $190 million on top of its existing reward.
Apple has responded to a damages retrial verdict that could someday see the iPhone maker paying out $625 million -- nearly double the original damages -- in a case it lost against VPN company VirnetX over VPN technology used in FaceTime, Messages, and VPN on Demand. In the 2011 case, the jury said the Cupertino company infringed willfully in the original complaint, and did not do enough to avoid further infringement after the initial verdict. On Friday, Apple filed a motion calling for a mistrial.
Apple was handed a rare defeat in a patent case today, with virtual private network (VPN) company VirnetX granted a $625.6 million verdict in the FaceTime patent damages retrial. While the attorneys for VirnetX claim that this is the second time a federal jury has found Apple liable for infringing patented technology, the hearing was not about finding infringement for the devices in the first trial, but determining what damages VirnetX should be paid for Apple's continued unlicensed use of the company's technology.
Monday launched the latest trial in the Apple versus VirnetX patent battle over virtual private network technologies used in FaceTime communications. In opening arguments in the retrial start, VirnetX demanded Apple pay $532 million in damages on the strength of more modern devices added to the complaint, saying that "Apple hasn't played fair. They have taken Virnetx's intellectual property without permission."
Patent holding firm VirnetX has filed a motion with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, requesting a rehearing of a September decision tossing a $368.2 million verdict against Apple, and asking it to reinstate a District Court's damages award in full. In a press release, VirnetX says the decision was "contrary to the patent statute and Supreme Court precedent." It also asserts that it should receive damage payments on the basis that the District Court properly construed the claim term "secure communication link."
Last week, the US Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC threw out a jury award of $368.2 million to patent holder VirnetX. While the court agreed that some patents were infringed by Apple, the appeals court ruled that incorrect jury instructions were doled out by the judge, which tainted the jury when it determined the damage award.
US District Judge Leonard Davis has issued pre-trial rulings blocking Apple attempts to preemptively invalidate some VirnetX patent claims, and in other cases use invalidity as a defense, reports say. For the former, Apple's argument had been that many of VirnetX's claims are too vague to justify patenting, including the use of terms like "secure name service," "secure name," or "unsecured name."
Apple has partially reversed course on its decision to change the way iOS 6 handles VPN connections, a modified Apple support document reveals. "Apple no longer plans to change the behavior of the VPN On Demand feature of iOS 6.1 for devices that have already been shipped. The 'Always' option will continue to work as it currently does on these devices," the company says.
A forthcoming version of iOS will change the way the OS handles VPN connections, according to a support document on Apple's website. On devices with VPN On Demand, the "Always" setting will instead behave as if it were "Establish if needed." In essence, VPN On Demand will only be established if iOS can't resolve the DNS name of a host. The new firmware is scheduled to appear sometime this month.
Cisco has won in a patent infringement trial against patent-licensing firm VirnetX. A jury in a Texas court found in favor of Cisco Systems, confirming that it did not infringe on VirnetX Holding Corp's patents relating to secure network communications, and rejecting a demand from VirnetX for $258 million in damages.