In the patent case between Apple
and VirnetX, a federal jury in East Texas ruled on February 3 that Apple must
pay VirnetX more than $625 million for using technology in patents held by
VirnetX without their permission in Apple’s FaceTime and iMessage applications.
The jury concluded that these technologies and the Apple devices running them
infringe on VirnetX intellectual property covering secure communications
protocols.
The case was based on four
patents, and the jury had to answer nine questions regarding Apple’s supposed
infringement of patents held by VirnetX. The four patents in question were the
following:
- U.S. Patent #6,502,135 (“135 patent”): Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability
- U.S. Patent #7,490,151 (“151 patent”): Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request
- U.S. Patent #7,418,504 (“504 patent”): Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names
- U.S. Patent #7,921,211 (“211 patent”): Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names
- Question one for the jury had to do with Apple’s infringement of the ‘135 and ‘151 patents with their “VPN on Demand” feature. Apple conceded that they infringed on these two patents, and the jury ruled that Apple must pay just under $335 million in damages to VirnetX.
- Questions two through six were regarding the specific patent infringements committed by Apple. The jury unanimously ruled that Apple infringed on claims in the four aforementioned patents held by VirnetX for its “VPN on Demand” and FaceTime features on a variety of Apple operating systems and devices.
- In questions seven through nine, the jury ruled that Apple willfully infringed on claims in the patents mentioned in questions two through six. Even in this higher level of proof, the jury arrived at this decision unanimously.
Hey Jay! I thought it was great that you included the details of each patent. Your blog was super easy to read and the high level descriptions of the patents allow everyone to relate how Apple may have been using the technology.
ReplyDeleteHi Jay. Awesome, detailed post regarding each of the four mentioned patents in the case. It's interesting how broad and applicable each of these patents are to numerous cloud-based applications. This is quite valuable information and very informative, one of the better blog posts I've seen on the case so far. Perhaps the conclusion could have been a bit longer and provided a summary of the situation. Awesome work
ReplyDeleteHi Jay. Awesome, detailed post regarding each of the four mentioned patents in the case. It's interesting how broad and applicable each of these patents are to numerous cloud-based applications. This is quite valuable information and very informative, one of the better blog posts I've seen on the case so far. Perhaps the conclusion could have been a bit longer and provided a summary of the situation. Awesome work
ReplyDeleteHey Jay,
ReplyDeleteI think its really helpful that you went into great detail about the exact patent terms that Apple apparently infringed upon. After reading through the four patents you laid out, I realized that patent #504 and #211 have the same description. Why do you think that is? I was thinking it might have something to do with a continuation of the lawsuit action back in 2012 but I'm not sure. Anyways, this was an interesting read.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your notes on the details of the dispute. I thought it was interesting that you identified the fact that the jury had to answer nine questions regarding the supposed patent infringement. I’d be curious as to how this questioning fares compared to other lawsuits - more intense? Less intense? I’d also like to know some more about the jurors: who they were, what their relationship was/was not to Apple, etc. I’d be curious in a future post to hear your thoughts and whether you would’ve voted the same way the jurors did. Great job pointing out the specifics of the case!