throbber
No. 19-832
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC., LEIDOS, INC.,
`Respondents.
`
`————
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`————
`
`BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
`
`————
`
`DONALD URRABAZO
`URRABAZO LAW, P.C.
`2029 Century Park East
`Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(310) 388-9099
`durrabazo@ulawpc.com
`
`Counsel for Leidos, Inc.
`
`
`
`JEFFREY A. LAMKEN
`Counsel of Record
`MICHAEL G. PATTILLO, JR.
`RAYINER I. HASHEM
`JAMES A. BARTA
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`The Watergate, Suite 660
`600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 556-2000
`jlamken@mololamken.com
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
`
`WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
`
`

`

`JORDAN A. RICE
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Suite 5350
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`The questions presented are:
`1. Whether
`the expert’s estimate of patent-
`infringement damages satisfied the requirement that
`patent damages must be apportioned to the value
`provided by the infringed patents.
`2. Whether Apple demonstrated intervening circum-
`stances warranting reconsideration of the damages judg-
`ment once the Federal Circuit issued decisions upholding
`the validity of patent claims that Apple infringes, where
`Apple conceded below that those claims fully support the
`entire damages award.
`
`(i)
`
`

`

`ii
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
`Petitioner Apple Inc. was the defendant in the district
`court and the appellant in the court of appeals. Respon-
`dents VirnetX Inc. and Leidos, Inc., were the plaintiffs in
`the district court and the appellees in the court of
`appeals.
`Cisco Systems, Inc., was a defendant in the district
`court. It did not participate in the proceedings before the
`court of appeals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iii
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, respondent
`VirnetX Inc. states that it is a subsidiary of VirnetX
`Holdings Corp. and that no other company owns 10% or
`more of its stock. Respondent Leidos, Inc. states that it
`is a subsidiary of Leidos Holdings, Inc. and that no other
`company owns 10% or more of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iv
`STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`There are no related proceedings, within the meaning
`of Rule 14.1(b)(iii), beyond those identified in the petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Statement ......................................................................
`I.
`Statutory and Regulatory Framework ........
`A. The Patent Act ..........................................
`B. Patent Cancellation in Inter Partes
`Reexamination or Review .......................
`II. Proceedings Below ..........................................
`A. VirnetX’s Patented Technology for
`Secure Internet Communications ..........
`B. The First Trial and Appeal .....................
`C. Retrials in District Court ........................
`D. Parallel PTO Proceedings .......................
`E. The Federal Circuit Affirms the
`District Court’s Judgment But
`Overturns the PTO Decisions in
`Relevant Part ............................................
`1. The Federal Circuit Summarily
`Affirms the District Court’s
`Judgment ............................................
`2. The Federal Circuit Overturns
`the PTO in Critical Part in the
`Cisco Reexamination Appeal ..........
`3. The Federal Circuit Overturns
`the PTO in the Mangrove Appeal ...
`4. The Federal Circuit Overturns
`the PTO in Critical Part Again in
`the Apple/Cisco Reexamination
`Appeal ..................................................
`5. The Federal Circuit Denies
`Apple’s Motion To File a
`Successive Rehearing Petition .........
`
`(v)
`
`Page
`1
`2
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`4
`5
`7
`9
`
`10
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`13
`
`14
`
`

`

`vi
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Reasons for Denying the Petition .............................
`I. The Federal Circuit’s Summary
`Affirmance Presents No Issue
`Warranting Review .........................................
`A. Apple’s Claim That the Federal
`Circuit Has Abandoned
`Garretson’s Apportion
`Requirement Is Meritless .......................
`B. Apple’s Repeated Waivers Make
`This Unpublished Summary
`Affirmance an Exceptionally Poor
`Vehicle........................................................
`II. The Federal Circuit’s Affirmance of the
`Judgment, Where No Asserted Claims
`Have Been Cancelled, Does Not Merit
`Review ...............................................................
`A. Apple’s Fact-Bound Contention
`That the Court Below Erred in
`Applying Established Principles
`Lacks Merit ...............................................
`B. Apple’s Case-Specific Complaints
`Underscore the Absence of Any
`Issue Warranting Review .......................
`Conclusion .....................................................................
`
`Page
`15
`
`15
`
`17
`
`24
`
`27
`
`28
`
`33
`35
`
`
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`26
`
`31
`
`29
`
`CASES
`Am. Surety Co. v. Baldwin,
`287 U.S. 156 (1932) .............................................
`B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) .........................................
`Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .........................
`Clark v. Wooster,
`119 U.S. 322 (1886) .............................................
`Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research
`Organisation v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............... 17, 20, 21
`Cutter v. Wilkinson,
`544 U.S. 709 (2005) .............................................
`Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn.
`Moline Plow Co.,
`235 U.S. 641 (1915) .......................................... 19, 23
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes
`Network Sys., LLC,
`927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............... 17, 21, 24
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................... 19, 23
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................... 30, 33
`Garretson v. Clark,
`111 U.S. 120 (1884) ....................................... passim
`GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States,
`678 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................
`
`19
`
`27
`
`33
`
`(vii)
`
`

`

`viii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`31
`
`19
`
`24
`
`32
`
`Grogan v. Garner,
`498 U.S. 279 (1991) .............................................
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ............................................. 3, 31
`Monsanto Co. v. McFarling,
`488 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
` 735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................
`Pease v. Rathbun-Jones Eng’g Co.,
`243 U.S. 273 (1917) .............................................
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`757 F. App’x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................. 30, 33
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .........................
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) .............................................
`Rude v. Westcott,
`130 U.S. 152 (1889) .............................................
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Time Warner Cable,
`Inc., 760 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........ 17, 22
`Stevenson v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours
`& Co., 327 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2003) ............... 24, 25
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`931 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................... passim
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`776 F. App’x 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............. passim
`VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners
`Master Fund, Ltd.,
`778 F. App’x 897 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............. passim
`
`27
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`ix
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`31
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
`890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .........................
`STATUTES
`Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. .................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................
`2
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...............................................
`3
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ....................................................
`9
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a) (2006) .................................. 3, 30
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ...............................................
`3
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ...............................................
`3
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a) (2006) ............................ 3, 30, 31
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (2006) ...................................
`30
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b) ............................................. 3, 30
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .......................
`American Inventors Protection Act, Pub. L.
`106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999) ...........................
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Sup. Ct. R. 10 ........................................................ 27, 28
`Fed. Cir. R. 36 ...................................................... 12, 31
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`NO. 19-832
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC., LEIDOS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Respondents.
`————
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
` to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`————
`BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
`————
`STATEMENT
`VirnetX develops software for establishing secure
`communications over the Internet. It holds U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,418,504 (’504 patent); 7,921,211 (’211 patent);
`6,502,135 (’135 patent); and 7,490,151 (’151 patent). Apple
`no longer disputes that it incorporated VirnetX’s tech-
`nology into its products, infringing VirnetX’s patents.
`This case, pending for more than a decade, has been the
`subject of three trials and two appeals. In each trial, the
`jury found against Apple. The district court found Apple
`had engaged in “gamesmanship” to stall proceedings.
`Pet. App. 63a, 71a-72a. Long ago, the Federal Circuit
`upheld the patents’ validity in a decision Apple nowhere
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`challenges. Pet. App. 102a-103a. And the Federal Circuit
`now has affirmed the entire judgment, in an unpublished,
`one-word, summary order.
`Apple invokes parallel administrative proceedings
`before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), argu-
`ing that the PTO has “invalidated” the asserted patent
`claims. But Apple elides the fact that—in three separate
`decisions—the Federal Circuit overturned PTO decisions
`purporting to find the asserted claims of the ’135 and ’151
`patents and an asserted claim of the ’504 patent un-
`patentable. None of those claims have been “invalidat-
`ed,” let alone cancelled by the PTO. Critically, Apple
`agreed below that those surviving claims fully support
`the damages award.
`Apple also challenges the apportionment of damages
`as inconsistent with Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120
`(1884). But Apple prevailed on apportionment argu-
`ments in its first appeal. In this latest appeal, the Fed-
`eral Circuit properly affirmed when Apple failed to raise
`any meritorious or properly preserved apportionment
`challenge. Apple mischaracterizes Federal Circuit pre-
`cedent. Its challenge has nothing to do with apportion-
`ment (i.e., ensuring damages are not awarded on
`unpatented features of products); it concerns the fact-
`bound question of whether the prior licenses introduced
`at trial are reasonable comparators of the proper royalty
`rate. The petition presents no issue warranting review
`and is plagued by fatal defects regardless.
`I. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`A. The Patent Act
`Under the Patent Act, the inventor of a “new and
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter” may obtain a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Anyone
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`who, without permission, “makes, uses, offers to sell, or
`sells any patented invention” in the United States is an
`infringer and may be liable for damages, including a
`reasonable royalty. Id. § 271(a).
`Accused infringers may defend by challenging the
`patent’s validity. But invalidity is an affirmative defense
`that must be proved by clear-and-convincing evidence.
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011).
`B. Patent Cancellation in Inter Partes Reexam-
`ination or Review
`Although invalidity can be raised as a defense in
`district court infringement actions, Congress has created
`procedures for challenging and seeking cancellation of
`patents at the PTO. Under the American Inventors Pro-
`tection Act, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999), parties
`could “file a request for inter partes reexamination”
`based on certain types of “prior art.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(a)
`(2006). The America Invents Act replaced inter partes
`reexamination with “inter partes review.” See America
`Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). That
`procedure allows a person to petition the PTO “to cancel
`as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent” on specified
`grounds. 35 U.S.C. § 311(a)-(b) (2018).
`Under either procedure, the PTO may issue a “certifi-
`cate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined
`to be unpatentable,” but cannot do so until “the time for
`appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has termi-
`nated.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a) (2006); see 35 U.S.C. § 318(b)
`(2018). Thus, patent cancellation occurs only after judi-
`cial review—and will never occur if the PTO’s unpatent-
`ability decision is reversed.
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`II. PROCEEDINGS BELOW
`This dispute arises out of Apple’s infringement of Vir-
`netX’s patents for secure communications technologies.
`It spans three district court trials and two Federal Cir-
`cuit appeals. It also involves three related appeals from
`PTO proceedings.
`A. VirnetX’s Patented Technology for Secure
`Internet Communications
`While at Science Applications International Corp., the
`inventors sought to address capacity shortages on U.S.
`military satellites by developing secure systems for using
`civilian satellites. C.A. App. 1256-1257.1 They built “net-
`Eraser,” which created secure “virtual private networks”
`(“VPNs”) over unsecure networks. C.A. App. 1257. The
`netEraser VPN, however, was difficult to use. C.A. App.
`1263-1264. Users had to configure myriad “parameters,”
`such as encryption keys and cryptographic certificates.
`Ibid.
`The innovation at issue here overcame those barriers,
`making secure communications easy to use. C.A. App.
`1263-1265. Ordinary use of the Internet involves typing
`domain names (like www.yahoo.com) into a web browser.
`C.A. App. 1271-1273. Ordinarily, a domain name system
`(“DNS”) translates that “name” into the numerical inter-
`net protocol addresses (“IP addresses”), which compu-
`ters need to send each other data. Ibid. The innovation
`here allows users to enter a domain name. But a separ-
`ate DNS-like system recognizes when secure communica-
`tions are sought, and establishes secure links automatic-
`ally, without further user action.
`
`1 All record citations are to the appendix and docket entries from
`Federal Circuit Case No. 18-1197 unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`The ’135 and ’151 patents disclose a “DNS proxy
`server” that “creates a virtual private network in re-
`sponse to a domain name inquiry.” C.A. App. 348-364.
`When a user types a domain name into a web browser,
`the user’s computer sends a request to the DNS to
`translate that domain name into an IP address that can
`be used for direct data transmission. C.A. App. 364. The
`“DNS proxy server” “intercept[s]” that request, and
`determines whether the user seeks access to a secure
`Internet resource. Ibid. If so, it automatically creates a
`VPN between the user’s computer and that secure
`resource. Ibid.
`The second invention, disclosed in the ’504 and ’211
`patents, is a “technique * * * for establishing a secure
`communication link” between two computers over the
`Internet. C.A. App. 219. Users access a “secure domain
`name service” (“SDNS”). C.A. App. 241-242. But the
`SDNS determines whether it supports establishing a
`secure link with the other computer and, if so, provides
`an indication to that effect. C.A. App. 167; see C.A. App.
`242. The SDNS facilitates exchange of parameters nec-
`essary for establishing secure communications (e.g., a
`secure call over the Internet). C.A. App. 241.
`B. The First Trial and Appeal
`VirnetX filed this infringement action in 2010, alleging
`that the “VPN on Demand” feature of Apple devices,
`which creates VPNs automatically, infringes the ’135 and
`’151 patents. Pet. App. 5a. VirnetX also alleged that
`Apple’s FaceTime, which enables secure voice and video
`calls, infringes the ’504 and ’211 patents. Ibid. In 2012, a
`jury found that the asserted claims were not invalid, and
`that VPN on Demand and FaceTime infringed. Pet. App.
`79a. It awarded $368 million. Ibid.
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`In 2014, the Federal Circuit upheld the patent claims’
`validity, Pet. App. 102a-103a, and found the ’135 and ’151
`patents infringed by VPN on Demand, Pet. App. 79a-80a
`(“VirnetX I”). The court remanded for a new trial on
`FaceTime’s infringement. Pet. App. 85a-92a. It also
`vacated the damages award on apportionment grounds.
`Pet. App. 105a-125a.
` The court surveyed the law,
`starting with Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884).
`Pet. App. 107a-112a. It found that the jury instructions
`erroneously suggested that patent royalties could be
`based on the entire price of an infringing device if the
`device “constitutes the smallest salable unit containing
`the patented feature.” Pet. App. 110a.
`The Federal Circuit found that VirnetX’s damages
`evidence had a similar defect. Pet. App. 113a. VirnetX
`had calculated damages based on prior licenses for its
`patents. Pet. App. 105a. VirnetX’s expert had analyzed
`those licenses, and determined that prior licensees had
`paid about 1% of the price of their product as a royalty.
`Pet. App. 116a-117a. VirnetX’s expert therefore esti-
`mated that, in a hypothetical negotiation, Apple and
`VirnetX would have agreed to a royalty rate of 1% of the
`price of Apple’s infringing devices. Ibid.
`On appeal, Apple did not argue that the Apple device
`features that use VirtnetX’s technology somehow employ
`it differently than the prior licensees. Apple Br. 61-63 in
`No. 13-1489 (Fed. Cir.). Nor had it made any such argu-
`ment in seeking to exclude VirnetX’s damages expert
`under Daubert in district court. See D. Ct. Dkt. 445 at 2-
`10 in No. 10-cv-417 (E.D. Tex.). It argued that applying
`the naked percentage rate derived from prior licenses to
`Apple’s more expensive and more heavily featured
`devices awarded damages (a royalty) on Apple device
`features that are not covered by, and do not infringe, Vir-
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`netX’s patents. Pet. App. 113a-115a; Apple Br. 56-58 in
`No. 13-1489 (Fed. Cir.). The Federal Circuit agreed. Be-
`cause that percentage method risked imposing a royalty
`on “the vast number of non-patented features contained
`in the accused products,” Pet. App. 115a-116a, the
`methodology did not “comport[ ] with settled principles of
`apportionment,” Pet. App. 113a.
`Apple also argued that the six prior licenses VirnetX
`relied on “were not sufficiently comparable to the
`license” Apple would have negotiated. Pet. App. 116a.
`Apple argued that some prior licenses conveyed more
`rights—covering more patents, or granting a software
`license—than what Apple would have sought. Pet. App.
`116a-117a. Apple did not argue, however, that prior li-
`censees used the technology so differently than Apple’s
`infringing features that the licenses could not be used to
`calculate royalty rates. It did not contend that the
`licenses’ origins in litigation settlements made them in-
`apposite. Apple Br. 61-63 in No. 13-1489 (Fed. Cir.).
`The Federal Circuit rejected Apple’s challenge to reli-
`ance on the licenses. Pet. App. 119a. It observed that, of
`the six licenses VirnetX relied on, four “relate[d] to the
`actual patents-in-suit, while the others were drawn to
`related technology.” Pet. App. 117a-118a. It also found
`that “the other differences that Apple complain[ed]” of
`did not render the licenses so dissimilar as to preclude
`reliance on them. Ibid. Those differences had been
`properly “presented to the jury, allowing the jury to fully
`evaluate the relevance of the licenses.” Pet. App. 118a.
`C. Retrials in District Court
`In 2016, the district court held a second trial on re-
`mand issues (and additional infringement claims against
`newer versions of Apple’s products). Pet. App. 6a.
`VirnetX relied on a new damages model that eliminated
`
`
`

`

`8
`the prior apportionment defect. VirnetX’s expert identi-
`fied the licensed products most similar to Apple’s de-
`vices—mainly, “IP phones” supporting secure voice and
`video calls over the Internet like Apple’s FaceTime and
`VPN-on-Demand features—and accounted for differ-
`ences in license terms (such as cross-licenses). C.A. App.
`1784-1785; see D. Ct. Dkt. 542-2 at ¶¶ 116-120. However,
`he did not calculate a percentage royalty based on the
`price of Apple’s products, avoiding the risk of imposing a
`royalty on Apple features that do not utilize VirnetX’s
`patents. Instead, he used prior licenses to estimate the
`“dollar value” of the patented secure-communications
`technology apart from the price of Apple’s (or anyone
`else’s) devices.
` VirnetX C.A. Br. 44-46, 48-50; see
`C.A. App. 1778, 1952-1953. In particular, he calculated
`the dollar value that prior licensees paid for that secure-
`calling technology, and determined that Apple would
`have paid no less. VirnetX C.A. Br. 49.
`Apple unsuccessfully sought exclusion of VirnetX’s
`damages model on apportionment grounds, but never
`argued that the features of its products that employ
`VirnetX’s patented technology (FaceTime and VPN on
`Demand) use it differently, or to a lesser degree, than the
`licensed products. See D. Ct. Dkt. 217-1, D.Ct. Dkt. 243-
`1, and D. Ct. Dkt. 323 in No. 12-cv-855 (E.D. Tex.).
`Instead, Apple argued that VirnetX’s expert should have
`adjusted the dollar value of prior licenses in view of other
`considerations. D. Ct. Dkt. 217-1 at 1-2 in No. 12-cv-855
`(E.D. Tex.). After trial, the jury again found for VirnetX.
`Pet. App. 6a. But the district court vacated the verdict,
`finding that Apple had been prejudiced by references to
`the first trial’s verdict. Ibid.
`
`
`
`

`

`9
`When a third trial was held, VirnetX prevailed again.
`The jury found that FaceTime infringed the ’504 and ’211
`patents, and awarded $302 million. Pet. App. 6a-8a.
`The district court enhanced a portion of the damages
`under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because Apple had willfully in-
`fringed and engaged in “litigation misconduct.” Pet. App.
`51a, 65a. The court found that Apple had improperly
`attempted to delay court proceedings, “repeatedly” seek-
`ing to “stay the litigation,” “even after receiving adverse
`rulings from the Court,” and after the Federal Circuit
`had upheld the jury’s no-invalidity finding. Pet. App. 63a.
`Finding this case “exceptional,” the court awarded Vir-
`netX attorney’s fees. Pet. App. 71a. It again cited
`Apple’s meritless stay requests, as well as other “games-
`manship.” Pet. App. 71a-72a.
`D. Parallel PTO Proceedings
`About a year after trial-court proceedings began,
`Apple and other parties filed petitions in the PTO chal-
`lenging the patents VirnetX had asserted against Apple.
`See VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 931 F.3d 1363, 1364 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019) (“Apple/Cisco Reexamination”); VirnetX Inc.
`v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 776 F. App’x 698, 699 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(“Cisco Reexamination”). In 2016, the PTO determined
`that the claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents infringed by
`FaceTime were unpatentable. See Apple/Cisco Reexam-
`ination, 931 F.3d at 1368 (’504 and ’211 patents); Cisco
`Reexamination, 776 F. App’x at 701 (’504 patent).
`In 2015, Mangrove Partners challenged the ’135 and
`’151 patents infringed by VPN on Demand as unpatent-
`able. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund,
`Ltd., 778 F. App’x 897, 900 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Apple filed a
`nearly identical petition that was consolidated with Man-
`grove’s (even though a prior Apple petition was rejected
`
`
`
`

`

`10
`as time-barred). Id. at 900-901. In 2016, the PTO found
`those claims unpatentable. Id. at 901.
`VirnetX appealed. The appeals were organized into
`three proceedings: (1) the Cisco Reexamination appeal
`concerning the ’504 patent infringed by FaceTime, 776 F.
`App’x 698; (2) the Apple/Cisco Reexamination appeal
`addressing the ’211 and ’504 patents infringed by Face-
`Time, 931 F.3d 1363; and (3) the Mangrove appeal
`addressing the ’135 and ’151 patents infringed by VPN on
`Demand, 778 F. App’x 897.
`E. The Federal Circuit Affirms the District
`Court’s Judgment But Overturns the PTO
`Decisions in Relevant Part
`Notwithstanding a one-year delay in entering judg-
`ment after the third trial, Apple’s appeal from the district
`court reached the Federal Circuit while VirnetX’s ap-
`peals from PTO proceedings were still being briefed.
`Following repeated efforts by Apple to delay the appeal
`in this case, the Federal Circuit—recognizing that this
`case and the Apple/Cisco Reexamination and Mangrove
`appeals concerned the same patents and claims—ordered
`that they be coordinated for argument. C.A. Dkt. 50; see
`pp. 12-14, infra. Those appeals were argued in January
`2019 before the same panel (Prost, C.J.; Moore and
`Reyna, J.). The Cisco Reexamination appeal, to which
`Apple was not a party, proceeded separately.
`1. The Federal Circuit Summarily Affirms the
`District Court’s Judgment
`Following argument on January 15, 2019, the Federal
`Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s decision
`without opinion. Pet. App. 1a-2a. As explained above,
`VirnetX’s expert had calculated the “dollar value” that
`prior licensees paid for VirnetX’s patented secure-
`
`
`
`

`

`11
`communications feature. See pp. 7-8, supra. Challenging
`that methodology, Apple urged that “apportionment”
`required additional, unspecified adjustments to the prior-
`license royalty rates. Apple C.A. Br. 40-48. It insisted
`that VirnetX had “ignor[ed] * * * sharp differences”
`between the prior licenses and any license Apple might
`have sought. Id. at 40, 43. Citing Garretson in passing,
`id. at 40, it argued that it had more complex products,
`and some prior licenses gave rights to more patents for a
`longer period of time. Id. at 45-47.
`As VirnetX pointed out, however, Apple utterly failed
`to show that the methodology asked it to pay a royalty
`for Apple features that did not use VirnetX’s technology.
`VirnetX C.A. Br. 45-47, 49-50. If Apple included features
`in its phones that were absent from those of prior
`licensees, it explained, any “ ‘extra revenue’ ” from those
`features went “ ‘to Apple.’ ” Ibid. (quoting C.A. App.
`1952). Apple’s arguments went to its claim that the
`dollar amounts of prior licenses should be adjusted. Id.
`at 51-52. But Apple did not explain “which ‘special cir-
`cumstances’ and ‘sharp differences’ went unaddressed.”
`Ibid. Moreover, while the prior licenses Apple attacked
`were the same or indistinguishable from those in the
`prior appeal, Apple had failed to raise purported distinc-
`tions in that appeal or in a Daubert challenge below.2
`The arguments were therefore foreclosed. Id. at 53.
`At oral argument, Apple urged that affirmances in
`three PTO appeals—the Mangrove, Cisco Reexamina-
`tion, and Apple/Cisco Reexamination appeals—would
`
`
`2 VirnetX’s expert had used four of the six licenses at issue in
`VirnetX I, Pet. App. 117a-119a, plus two more that were indistin-
`guishable, VirnetX C.A. Br. 44.
`
`
`
`

`

`12
`require the damages judgment to be vacated. Oral Arg.
`Recording 0:36-3:52, 38:42-41:20. But Apple had conced-
`ed that damages would be the “same” for each feature,
`regardless of the number of patent claims each infringed.
`D. Ct. Dkt. 1036 at 70 (closing statement); see Oral Arg.
`Recording 1:33-2:02, 26:16-27:10. Thus, Apple had no an-
`swer to the panel’s observation that damages “[would]n’t
`[be] affect[ed] * * * at all” so long as at least at least one
`infringed claim covering VPN on Demand, and one cover-
`ing FaceTime, remained intact. Oral Arg. Recording
`40:59-41:11.
`A week after argument, the Federal Circuit affirmed
`without opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. Pet. App.
`1a-2a. Apple sought rehearing. C.A. Dkt. 78. Apple also
`urged the court to hold its rehearing petition pending
`decisions in the Mangrove, Cisco Reexamination, and
`Cisco/Apple Reexamination appeals, asserting those
`decisions might result in cancellation of every claim
`infringed by FaceTime, VPN on Demand, or both. Id. at
`16-18. The Federal Circuit held Apple’s petition pending
`those appeals.
`2. The Federal Circuit Overturns the PTO in
`Critical Part in the Cisco Reexamination
`Appeal
`In June 2019, with Apple’s rehearing petition in this
`case still pending, the Federal Circuit decided the Cisco
`Reexamination appeal. It vacated the PTO’s finding
`that claim 5 of the ’504 patent—infringed by FaceTime—
`was unpatentable, holding that the PTO failed to consider
`VirnetX’s arguments. 776 F. App’x at 704. The court
`upheld other PTO unpatentability findings. Id. at 698.
`Apple filed a supplemental brief in this case, urging
`that the Cisco Reexamination decision should be given
`“collateral estoppel” effect. C.A. Dkt. 86 at 1-13. Apple
`
`
`

`

`13
`urged VirnetX should be precluded from asserting that
`any claim of the ’504 and ’211 patents is patentable. Ibid.
`If the court agreed, Apple argued, damages in this case
`should be “recalculate[ed]” so as to cover only VPN on
`Demand. Id. at 14-15. But Apple conceded that recalcu-
`lation would be necessary only if the court held that “all
`claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents asserted against
`Apple * * * (including claim 5 of the ’504 patent)” were
`unpatentable. Ibid. (emphasis added). That, however,
`had not happened.
`3. The Federal Circuit Overturns the PTO in the
`Mangrove Appeal
`In July 2019, the Federal Circuit decided the Man-
`grove appeal involving the ’151 and ’135 patents infringed
`by VPN on Demand. The panel vacated all of the PTO’s
`unpatentability findings, holding that the PTO’s claim
`construction was erroneous and its findings were unsup-
`ported by substantial evidence. 778 F. App’x at 905-906.
`It also held that the PTO erred in refusing VirnetX dis-
`covery on a potentially case-dispositive issue. Id. at 901-
`904.
`
`4. The Federal Circuit Overturns the PTO in
`Critical Part Again in the Apple/Cisco Reex-
`amination Appeal
`On August 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit decided the
`Apple/Cisco Reexamination appeal involving the ’504
`and ’211 patents infringed by FaceTime. The same panel
`that heard this case vacated PTO findings that several
`claims, including claim 5 of the ’504 patent, were un-
`patentable. 931 F.3d at 1378. It held that a statutory
`estoppel provision barred Apple from challenging those
`claims before the PTO after having lost its validity
`challenge in this case years before. Id. at 1369-1378; see
`
`
`
`

`

`14
`pp. 5-6, supra. The court upheld unpatentability findings
`regarding other claims. 931 F.3d at 1379-1380.
`The court rejected as “unpersuasive” Apple’s argu-
`ment that “collateral estoppel” required it to find all
`claims of the ’504 patent unpatentable. 931 F.3d at 1378
`n.15.
`5. The Federal Circuit Denies Apple’s Motion To
`File a Successive Rehearing Petition
`The Federal Circuit’s review of PTO proceedings left
`intact all claims of the ’135 and ’151 patents (infringed by
`VPN on Demand) and claim 5 of the ’504 patent (in-
`fringed by FaceTime). Apple had conceded that, unless
`all claims underlying the infringement findings for each
`feature were cancelled, damages would be unaffected.
`See pp. 12-13, supra. Accordingly, on August 1, 2019,
`after holding Apple’s rehearing petition for six months
`pending the three PTO appeals, the Federal Circuit
`denied rehearing. Pet. App. 129a.
`On August 7, 2019, Apple filed a motion for leave to
`file a second rehearing petition. C.A. Dkt. 98. Apple con-
`ceded that “claim 5 of the ’504 patent does not currently
`stand invalidated.” C.A. Dkt. 99-2 at 6 (emphasis added).
`It also conceded that “redetermination of damages”
`would be required only if “all asserted claims of two of
`the patents—the ’5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket