U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Apple's Appeal in $440 Million VirnetX Patent Case

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
47,569
9,373



The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear Apple's appeal of a $440 million judgment in one of the patent infringement cases brought by VirnetX a decade ago, reports Reuters.


VirnetX was originally awarded $302 million back in October 2016 in the dispute over VPN-related patents, but Apple appealed the ruling multiple times, and with interest and other costs tacked on, the judgment was later increased to $440 million.

Apple argued on appeal that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had canceled "key parts" of several of the patents involved in the case, but the courts rescinded that cancelation. Apple continued to appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court, but the court has opted not to intervene, leaving Apple on the hook for the $440 million judgment.

The case is one of two Apple has been embroiled in with VirnetX over the years. In the other case, VirnetX was initially awarded $502 million but the infringement ruling was partially overturned late last year and the case was sent back a lower court to determine a new amount for damages. Apple attempted to contest the validity of the remaining two patents at issue, but just two weeks ago, the court denied a rehearing on that aspect of the case.

Article Link: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Apple's Appeal in $440 Million VirnetX Patent Case
 

ItsSoShiny

macrumors newbie
Dec 5, 2019
5
7
Their CEO for VirnetX has been a senior executive position at Xerox Corporation...and the plot thickens...lol. also their webpage has mostly these articles more then what their company does or sells. I don't think apple is the bad guy here.
 

Lazy

macrumors 6502
May 27, 2003
275
253
Silicon Valley
A jury and judges at multiple levels decided that VirnetX is entitled to win. Unless you sat through the trial and read the briefs, how do you know they are wrong?
Part of the broken patent system is patents being issued for things that should not be patentable. Usually because they don’t meet the “not obvious” criteria. I of course don’t know if that’s the case for the patents at issue here, but that seems to be what Apple is suggesting. Or perhaps has shown, if the patents were invalidated.

Something certainly seems to be wrong here if Apple is going to have to pay for infringing patterns that have been invalidated. That makes no sense at all.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,322
1,130
A broken system is when someone's IP gets used without permission and without compensation.

Apple does this quite often, way too often for all the other parties to be labeled as patent trolls.
If Apple is legitimately infringing on patents, got no issue with them being held accountable for that.

But I do have an issue with a businesses sole purpose is to acquire patents then sue on the infringers.

So can I say the courts decision here is wrong? No, if Apple infringed, they rightfully got held accountable and it isn't the courts job to fix a broken system. To be mad at the courts is wrong. Be mad at Congress and write to your reps to demand the system to be fixed.
 

Northern Man

macrumors 6502a
Aug 25, 2013
903
1,300
If Apple is legitimately infringing on patents, got no issue with them being held accountable for that.

But I do have an issue with a businesses sole purpose is to acquire patents then sue on the infringers.

So can I say the courts decision here is wrong? No, if Apple infringed, they rightfully got held accountable and it isn't the courts job to fix a broken system. To be mad at the courts is wrong. Be mad at Congress and write to your reps to demand the system to be fixed.
[/QUOTE]
If the patent exists legally and the current owner acquired it legally it doesn't matter. A company infringing on the patent is the issue. Seems quite simple. Infringe on a patent and face the repercussions. Makes no difference who owns the patent.
- - Post merged: - -

Another victory for patent trolls, whose business model directly hurts progress and is fundamentally unamerican.
Someone had an idea and it was deemed original enough to receive a patent. Whether that idea is ever used or sees the light of day by the current owner of the patent means nothing. If a company (Apple in this case) wants to use the same idea which it did not originate, then be moral and enter discussions with the current patent owner to try and buy the idea. If Apple is rejected, so be it. Sharpen its pencils and come up with its own idea. "Fundamentally un-American" ???? You are therefore implying that stealing ideas which have a patent is Fundamentally American!! I hope you are not in the teaching profession or any position which has influence over impressionable young people.
 
Last edited:

JRobinsonJr

macrumors 6502a
Aug 20, 2015
643
1,133
Arlington, Texas
or not? Why do you assume Apple is in the right? We know from the past that Apple steals stuff so they should get punished.
Just because you are Apple doesn't mean you can get away with it.
While you are spot-on correct - and I suspect that every single technology company is guilty of this! - that doesn't change the fact that our patent system is broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freida

squirrellydw

macrumors regular
Nov 22, 2003
152
45
Patent trolls need to die and that’s what they are. Watch the documentary “The Patent Scam” and you will all understand
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.