Apple Ordered to Pay $302 Million in Damages to VirnetX in Patent Retrial

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 1, 2016.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple has been ordered to pay more than $302 million in damages for using VirnetX Holding Corp's patented internet security technology in its FaceTime platform without permission.

    According to a Reuters report filed late on Friday, the verdict was handed down by a federal jury in Texas that has a reputation for awarding favorable verdicts to plaintiffs in cases involving patent infringement.

    [​IMG]

    The U.S. district judge presiding over the case, Robert Schroeder, previously threw out VirnetX's $625.6 million win over Apple from a previous trial because he said jurors in that case may have been confused.

    The case with Nevada-based patent licensor VirnetX originally began in 2010, with a jury eventually awarding the company $368 million in 2012, but that decision was thrown out in 2014 after the court decided there were problems with how the trial judge had instructed jurors on calculating damages.

    VirnetX continued to pursue Apple in relation to patents it believes the company infringed upon. The previous two suits were combined by the licensor's lawyers, and in February, a jury returned with an even bigger verdict, $625.6 million - one of the highest ever in a U.S. patent case.

    However, Schroeder later voided the result, saying that the repeated references to the earlier case could have confused jurors and were unfair to Apple.

    In the latest trial, reports Reuters, jurors were asked to determine damages on two VirnetX patents that Apple had already been found to infringe, and to determine both infringement and damages on another two patents. The final $302.4 million award was in line with what VirnetX had been demanding.

    Neither Apple nor VirnetX have commented on the latest case, although Cupertino will surely exhaust all avenues for appeals before accepting the result. In the meantime, it is facing another court proceeding over whether it willfully infinged the patents, which could lead to higher damages.

    Apple is also set to contend with the trial in a second lawsuit filed by VirnetX over newer versions of Apple security features, as well as its iMessage platform.

    Article Link: Apple Ordered to Pay $302 Million in Damages to VirnetX in Patent Retrial
     
  2. smacrumon macrumors 68030

    smacrumon

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    #2
    Win some, lose some, overall Apple is winning.

    Maybe Apple should have sought permission and saved itself a headache.
     
  3. Archer_cz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2016
    #3
    China will become leading country in technology development soon, while everyone in US will be developing....eee...lawyers :)
     
  4. jimbobb24 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    #4
    How do you seek permission for vague software patents that should never be awarded and for which there is no product to compare to? Software patents need to stop or be 3 years only unless the company has an active product and then they should be maybe 5 years. Software patents are just a dumb idea. Software copyrights are a good idea. That way people cannot steal code.
     
  5. Quu macrumors 68030

    Quu

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    #5
    Ridiculous how high that award is. Something really needs to be done about patent trolling in the United States.
     
  6. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #6
    Apple play that game too but I do agree. Software patents (in fact most patents) should be scrapped. They have a purpose but when they are awarded based on putting money down and not an actual unique and new idea, they serve no purpose.
     
  7. kgtenacious macrumors regular

    kgtenacious

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #7
    This isn't just some patent troll case, SAIC was a huge part of this and has actual working government level products using the tech.
     
  8. Oblivious.Robot macrumors 6502a

    Oblivious.Robot

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    #8
    Perhaps Apple can pay them after they get their payments from the lawsuit with Samsung? :p
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    Perhaps if Apple settled this case, they would have saved themselves some money.
     
  10. Broken Hearted macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    #10
    Is that before or after Samsung loses all of its products due to them exploding?
     
  11. Jsameds macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
  12. RedOrchestra Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    #12
    So is Apple guilty of infringement of patent rights or not ... this article just talks about getting the case dismissed on technicalities related to the judicial process.
     
  13. macfacts, Oct 1, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2016

    macfacts macrumors 68040

    macfacts

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Location:
    Cybertron
    #14
    What is it people have against "patent trolls"? So what if they have no product. Is making the product the hard part or coming up with the idea the hard part. If people think making the product is the hard part, then why are those same people angry when Samsung has a smartphone that looks like an iPhone?
     
  14. realeric macrumors 65816

    realeric

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    United States
  15. rippley5150 macrumors regular

    rippley5150

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2015
    Location:
    Sterling VA
    #16
    Yeah, it is amazing how many patent cases are handled there.
     
  16. bluespark macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    It's not just patent cases, either. That jurisdiction has a long and well-documented record of sticking it to large corporations, whatever the merit the case has.
     
  17. Bawstun macrumors 68000

    Bawstun

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #18
    Virnet actually had an app in the App Store IIRC. They're not entirely patent trolls.
     
  18. ForkHandles macrumors regular

    ForkHandles

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    #19
    This is not significant, the system is working well and I can't see a reason for change.

    When Apple got into their most lucrative business (iPhones) they were 30 years late everyone else making phones. They piggy backed a million patents in every technology sector to create a phone. Despite this overwhelming complexity they were still able to make huge profits despite not having been involved in the evolution of the phone up to that point. Patent trolling isn't sexy but it also isn't a barrier to companies making profit.
     
  19. RedOrchestra Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    #20

    And doing exactly the same thing with Apple Pay.
     
  20. Gorms macrumors 6502

    Gorms

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Making products is the hard part. I came up with idea for a service THE SAME as Uk brand Just Eat in 1999 whilst stoned on a bench with my mate. Doesn't mean we did anything about it and we definitely shouldn't be rewarded for thinking about something then doing nothing.
     
  21. nt5672 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #22
    The law is the law, patent trolls exist because of mismanagement of the patent office. The problem here is government, like it always is, not the trolls. Until people get tired of all of these incompetent government bureaucrats its only going to get worse. Most of these patents should never have been granted to begin with.
     
  22. groovyd Suspended

    groovyd

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #23
    b.s. american jury system is like playing craps +- $300mil
     
  23. techpr macrumors 6502

    techpr

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Location:
    San Juan, PR
  24. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #25
    What about universities? Do you expect them to also sell an active product? How about business bankruptcy estates trying to recoup investors' losses? Do you expect them to also sell an active product?

    What is an active product anyway? Wouldn't an NPE be able to make up a product, make less than a dozen of these token products, and list them for an absurdly high price where no one would ever buy it? Seems like unnecessary busy-work? If not, and you would require proof of sales, wouldn't that unfairly disadvantage small companies?
     

Share This Page

126 October 1, 2016