Friday, February 28, 2014

Virnetx v Apple Appeal

The following is a bulleted list of topics that Apple has appealed in the Virnetx v Apple case.  An Appeal oral hearing will take place Monday March 3rd, 2014, which is scheduled for 30 minutes (15 minutes per side).  After the hearing takes place, I will be able to match up, which topics the Judges ask questions about.  This post will serve as a good reference point instead of digging through the briefs.  I plan to attend in person absent an emergency or very poor weather conditions.  A recording will eventually be made available through the CAFC website.

- Infringement judgment on the '135 and '151 should be reversed or vacated per the VPN On Demand functionality.  Terms "determine whether" at issue.

- Infringement judgment on the '504 and '211should be reversed or vacated per the FaceTime service. Claims construction term "domain name" "secure communication link" at issue.

- Judgment of no invalidity should be reversed for all four patents in-suit.  Prior art demonstrated was Kiuchi.

- A new trial should be granted on all infringement claims.  Court excluding reexamination evidence was erroneous and highly prejudicial.

- Damage award should be reversed or vacated.  Court erroneously instructed the jury that they could use entire value of Apple's products as a royalty, but Virnetx did not satisfy entire market value rule.

- Virnetx also relied on licenses not commensurate with the accused infringement and on a speculative and arbitrary Nash bargaining solution theory.

4 comments:

  1. Hahahahaha Apple, you funny try this always - Joey

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very bullish development in the case. VirnetX was granted its appeal to have the Keromytis declaration included. Big trouble for Apple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While it is nice to see a reversal at the USPTO in regards to the expert declaration, I see it as adding time to the reexamination, which hopefully a final judgment with appeals being exhausted terminates the reexaminations due to collateral estoppel. I don't exactly see it as big trouble for Apple, just another step in the ongoing struggle.

      Delete
  3. CAFC Schedule, Weather Permitting.... http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/argument/upcoming-oral-arguments.html

    ReplyDelete