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

[MacRumors]

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Patent and Trademark Office had canceled "key parts" of several of the patents involved in the case, but the courts rescinded that cancelation.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

 

[osx86]

This is what a broken patent system looks like. Patent trolls getting money like this...

 

[Freida]

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.

This is what a broken patent system looks like. Patent trolls getting money like this...

 

[Expos of 1969]

Excellent decision by the Supreme Court despite the fool who is the Chief Justice. Apple can do dirty work, run but cannot hide every time.

 

[cmaier]

This is what a broken patent system looks like. Patent trolls getting money like this...

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?

 

[ikir]

Are you joking guys? VirnetX is patent trolls King

 

[cmaier]

Are you joking guys? VirnetX is patent trolls King

That’s just name calling.

why, specifically, are they not entitled to the award?

 

[ItsSoShiny]

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.

 

[edgonzalez32]

Everyone sitting here poking fun at VirnetX yet I haven't seen one reason why they shouldn't be entitled to win. Any of you care to share some knowledge that you seem to have?

 

[LuciusMalfoy]

Everyone sitting here poking fun at VirnetX yet I haven't seen one reason why they shouldn't be entitled to win. Any of you care to share some knowledge that you seem to have?

I believe the issue people take with VirnetX is their business model.

 

[cmaier]

I believe the issue people take with VirnetX is their business model.

It’s never been a requirement in any patent system for the patent owner to make or sell anything.

 

[JonGarrett]

This is what a broken patent system looks like. Patent trolls getting money like this...

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.

 

[Lazy]

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.

 

[LuciusMalfoy]

It’s never been a requirement in any patent system for the patent owner to make or sell anything.

Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's ok or that things shouldn't be revised.

 

[quagmire]

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.

 

[NickName99]

Another victory for patent trolls, whose business model directly hurts progress and is fundamentally unamerican.

 

[Expos of 1969]

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.
[automerge]1582562384[/automerge]

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.

 

[BootsWalking]

You live by rounded-corner patents, you die by rounded-corner patents.

 

[dazed]

Just pay up and move on.

There needs to be a limit to the number of times there can be appeals. I’m not surprised the courts are tired of listening to it.

 

[gridlocked]

When SCOTUS declines to hear a case (the headline stating 'refuses' is ludicrous, as that implies they were obligated to do so and were stubborn in declining it) the rationale is that the appeal does not have weight.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

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.

 

[Expos of 1969]

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.

...or corporate morality is broken...

 

[squirrellydw]

Patent trolls need to die and that’s what they are. Watch the documentary “The Patent Scam” and you will all understand

 

[ddtmm]

Well there it is... judgement for the plaintiff. Whether they're patent trolls or not shouldn't have any bearing on the decision. Sounds like the courts did their job.

 

[azentropy]

It’s never been a requirement in any patent system for the patent owner to make or sell anything.

Right, but that is why some people think the patent system is broke!
They feel patent system should be to protect those develop and create things, not to be sold off or hoarded like a commodity to third parties.