One of Apple's longstanding patent infringement trials has officially come to an end, as Apple has now paid VirnetX millions of dollars.
Apple pays VirnetX $454 million in patent infringement case
Virnetx
U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Apple’s appeal in patent fight with VirnetX worth $440 million
Apple has a couple different patent fights ongoing with VirnetX, but one of them has finally reached its conclusion.
U.S. Court of Appeals rules Apple won’t get a rehearing in patent battle with VirnetX
Patent infringement battles are nothing new, especially not for Apple. And sometimes they can take years to complete.
U.S. appeals court vacates VirnetX’s $503 patent win against Apple
How long can a single trial go on for? Well apparently Apple and VirnetX want to find out, as yet another decision out of a United States appeal court will undoubtedly fuel things along.
Appeals court rules Apple must pay VirnetX $440 million in patent case
A U.S. appeals court has upheld a judgement against Apple worth $440 million, reports Reuters. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the iPhone-maker's request to throw out the 2016 jury verdict, which found it guilty of infringing on patents belonging to VirnetX.
Patent troll VirnetX granted half a billion dollar verdict against Apple
VirtnetX Holding Corp. has scored a major legal victory in its legal battle against Apple.
Apple must pay VirnetX $440 million in final judgement
A United States District Court denied all Apple's motions and appeals for new trials, upholding a $302.4 million jury verdict that vindicates VirnetX's patent infringement claims brought against Apple over secure communications protocols in FaceTime and other applications.
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $302.4 million in patent retrial
A jury has ordered Apple to pay $302.4 million to VirnetX Holding Corp over using its patented virtual private networking protocols in FaceTime and iMessage on the iPhone, iPad and Mac. The case will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC before VirnetX sees any payout, Reuters and Bloomberg reported today.
Judge voids $625 million verdict against Apple in VirnetX patent spat
In February 2016, a federal jury ordered that Apple pay $625 million to VirnetX Holding Corp after being found guilty of willfully infringing on technologies found in VirnetX's patents related to virtual private networking protocols. Friday, the judge voided that ruling after determining that the case should be revisited, CNBC reports. VirnetX alleges that its patented technology is used in FaceTime and iMessage on the iPhone, iPad and Mac.
Apple ordered to pay $625 million in VirnetX patent suit
Apple has been ordered by a federal jury in east Texas to pay $625 million for patent infringement, Reuters reported late Wednesday. The jury found the iPhone maker guilty of using VirnetX's security technology without its permission.
More specifically, Apple was found guilty of willfully infringing on technology found in VirnetX Holding Corp's patents related to virtual private networking protocols, which Apple uses in its FaceTime and iMessage apps on iPhone and iPad.
VirnetX seeking to extract $532 million from Apple in patent infringement retrial
Patent holding firm VirnetX yesterday told a federal jury that Apple should be slapped with a $532 million fine over an alleged patent infringement pertaining to FaceTime, iMessage and VPN technologies used in its products, which is nearly 45 percent higher than an initial damages award vacated last year.
According to Bloomberg, the notorious patent troll “keeps moving the boundary, asking for more and more and more,” said Apple’s lawyer.
USPTO denies Apple’s petitions for review of VirnetX patents
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today denied five petitions for so-called inter partes review filed by Apple, which sought to challenged the validity of certain claims of three of VirnetX's U.S. patents at stake.
The patent board has determined that the five petitions were not filed within the time limit imposed by the statute and therefore has declined to institute review of these claims between the parties involved.
