Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear VirnetX Patent Case, Saving Apple $503 Million

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,560
30,891


The United States Supreme Court today said that it will not hear the VirnetX vs. Apple patent case, putting an end to a 14-year-long legal battle and ultimately saving Apple $502.8 million.

virnetx_apple.jpg

As noted by CNBC, with the Supreme Court not weighing in, a March 2023 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will stand, so Apple will not have to pay the damages that VirnetX won in 2020.

VirnetX won a successful jury trial against Apple in 2020 and Apple was found to have violated VirnetX patents with its iPhone VPN on demand feature. The two patents cited in the case were later invalidated in a separate ruling from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

After Apple appealed the initial 2020 ruling, it was able to point to the invalidation of the patents and get the initial award vacated by the federal appeals court. VirnetX attempted to escalate the patent invalidation case to the Supreme Court, but has been denied.

VirnetX is viewed as a patent holding company or "patent troll" that does not offer actual products or services. It generates revenue by suing technology companies that infringe on or license its patents.

While Apple will not have to pay the $503 million from this particular trial, Apple did have to shell out $440 million in 2019 for violating VirnetX's communications security patents with FaceTime and iMessage.

Article Link: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear VirnetX Patent Case, Saving Apple $503 Million
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/20/apple-wins-virnetx-503-million/
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: SurferPup, SFjohn, jhfenton and 2 others
DaveN

DaveN

macrumors 6502a
May 1, 2010
906
757
I saw that report in the news a few hours ago. All I have to say is ”Yeah! The correct decision.”
 
MacProFCP

MacProFCP

Contributor
Jun 14, 2007
1,200
2,696
Michigan
And again, we demonstrate how flawed patent law is. I don’t know, nor care, about the specifics; the point is that both companies likely spent millions fighting this.

We need to find a way to make patent litigation affordable which means making it fast and efficient. When patent litigation costs millions, only the big guys win.

Again, I’m not advocating for either side here, I’m advocating against the current system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pianophile, Victor Mortimer, dead.cell and 3 others
Realityck

Realityck

macrumors G4
Nov 9, 2015
10,126
15,171
Silicon Valley, CA
MacRumors said:
As noted by CNBC, with the Supreme Court not weighing in, a March 2023 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will stand, so Apple will not have to pay the damages that VirnetX won in 2020.

VirnetX won a successful jury trial against Apple in 2020 and Apple was found to have violated VirnetX patents with its iPhone VPN on demand feature. The two patents cited in the case were later invalidated in a separate ruling from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Click to expand...
Sounds logical, there can be no grounds to appeal if it is based on invalided patents? SCOTUS has way too many things to deal with these days anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brucemr
Analog Kid

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
8,871
11,414
MacRumors said:
Apple will not have to pay the damages that VirnetX won in 2020.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is soooo misleading. The patents were found invalid. It's not like Apple just isn't paying what VirnetX won, VirnetX lost on appeal because the US PTO found their patents to be invalid.

Come on guys, this is just bad journalism. VirnetX was denied a chance to further appeal a verdict they lost.

MacRumors said:
VirnetX is viewed as a patent holding company or "patent troll" that does not offer actual products or services. It generates revenue by suing technology companies that infringe on or license its patents.
Click to expand...

This bothers me too. A smaller inventor may not have the resources to file a patent infringement case, so they sell their patents and the buyer looks to recoup their cost. There are some bs patents out there for sure, as these apparently were if they were invalidated, but that doesn't mean there's anything inherently trollish about seeking compensation for violation of a patent you hold.

If this were a valid patent, it wouldn't matter that VirnetX doesn't make a product or service based on the patent-- another company is and the patent holder deserves compensation for their IP.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RuralJuror, Victor Mortimer, neuropsychguy and 2 others
blcamp

blcamp

macrumors 6502
May 16, 2012
276
601
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Even though this one ultimately went Apple's way, how in the world did they become vulnerable to cases brought up by sketchy patent trolls like this? Seems like they need better lawyers to vet this stuff out at every stage of the game.

On the other hand, this kind of patent "squatting" needs to be ended in a fair manner. On the one hand, if you legitimately invent something but don't have the resources to build it out or license it, you should at least show some intent to do so... or else, sell it to someone who can and/or will. This could put an end to trolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEY and ScreenSavers
Analog Kid

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
8,871
11,414
MacProFCP said:
And again, we show how flawed patent law is. I don’t know, nor care, about the specifics; the point is that both companies likely spent millions fighting this.

We need to find a way to make patent litigation affordable which means making it fast and efficient. When patent litigation costs millions, only the big guys win.

Again, I’m not advocating for either side here, I’m advocating against the current system.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's some truth to that, but it wouldn't cost millions if it wasn't worth millions. If this was a better paper clip design, they would have hired cheaper lawyers.

The alternative would be to make the patent process itself more expensive so the PTO could better vet applications (getting a patent awarded doesn't mean it's valid, sadly)-- even then there is so much nuance to interpret it's hard make a judgement quick and efficient.

Frankly, that's why these patent holding companies exist-- Bob the inventor just doesn't have the resources to defend his IP against Apple, but a pool of patent sharks might. So Bob gets paid, and the sharks look for chum. In this case Bob made out-- VirnetX bought a patent and spent all that legal cost on a worthless claim, at least Bob walked away with some cash.
 
HiVolt

HiVolt

macrumors 68000
Sep 29, 2008
1,654
6,053
Toronto, Canada
blcamp said:
On the other hand, this kind of patent "squatting" needs to be ended in a fair manner. On the one hand, if you legitimately invent something but don't have the resources to build it out or license it, you should at least show some intent to do so... or else, sell it to someone who can and/or will. This could put an end to trolls.
Click to expand...
That makes too much sense. they would never go with something that makes sense or wouldnt make lawyers rich.

Patent holding only entities should not be allowed to exist for the sole purpose of extortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom