throbber
1a
`APPENDIX A
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC., LEIDOS, INC.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Defendant
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`2018-1197
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for
`the Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:10-cv-00417-
`RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washing-
`ton, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appellees. Plaintiff-
`appellee VirnetX Inc. also represented by JAMES A.
`BARTA, RAYINER HASHEM, MICHAEL GREGORY PAT-
`TILLO, JR.; ALLISON MILEO GORSUCH, New York, NY;
`
`

`

`2a
`BRADLEY WAYNE CALDWELL, JASON DODD CASSADY,
`JOHN AUSTIN CURRY, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dal-
`las, TX.
`DONALD SANTOS URRABAZO, Urrabazo Law, P.C.,
`Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee Leidos, Inc.
`Also represented by ANDY TINDEL, Mann, Tindel &
`Thompson, Tyler, TX.
`WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
`and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-ap-
`pellant. Also represented by REBECCA A. BACT, MARK
`CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, LAUREN B. FLETCHER;
`THOMAS GREGORY SPRANKLING, Palo Alto, CA; BRIT-
`TANY BLUEITT AMADI, Washington, DC.
`
`
`
`THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
`ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
`PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and
`REYNA, Circuit Judges).
`AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
`ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`January 15, 2019
`Date
`
`
`
`

`

`3a
`APPENDIX B
`
`In the United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division
`
`VIRNETX INC. and §
`SCIENCE

`APPLICATIONS

`INTERNATIONAL §
`CORPORATION,

`

`§ CAUSE NO. 6:10-CV-417







`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`SEALED
`
`UNSEALED 10-13-2017
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`4a
`Before the Court are the following motions:
` Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Rule 50(a)
`Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on
`Damages (Docket No. 1018);1
` Apple’s Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a
`Matter of Law of No Infringement (Docket
`No. 1019);
` Plaintiff VirnetX, Inc.’s (“VirnetX”) Post-Trial
`Brief Regarding Willfulness (Docket No. 1047);
` Apple’s Omnibus Motion for Judgment as a
`Matter of Law Under Rule 50(b) (Docket
`No. 1062); and
` VirnetX’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and
`Equitable Relief (Docket No. 1063).
`Having considered the parties’ written submis-
`sions and argument at the November 22, 2016
`post-trial hearing, and for the reasons stated
`below, the Court rules as follows:
` Apple’s Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a
`Matter of Law on Damages (Docket No. 1018)
`is DENIED-AS-MOOT;
`
`
`1 Unless noted otherwise, all references to the docket refer to
`Case No. 6:10-cv-417.
`
`

`

`5a
` Apple’s Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a
`Matter of Law of No Infringement (Docket
`No. 1019) is DENIED-AS-MOOT;
` VirnetX’s request in its Post-Trial Brief Re-
`garding Willfulness that the Court find that
`willful
`infringement
`(Docket No. 1047)
`is
`GRANTED;
` Apple’s Omnibus Motion for Judgment as a
`Matter of Law Under Rule 50(b) (Docket
`No. 1062) is DENIED; and
` VirnetX’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and
`Equitable Relief
`(Docket No. 1063)
`is
`GRANTED.
`BACKGROUND
`On August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed this action
`against Apple alleging that Apple infringed U.S. Pa-
`tent Nos. 6,502,135 (“the ’135 Patent”), 7,418,504
`(“the ’504 Patent”), 7,490,151 (“the ’151 Patent”), and
`7,921,211 (“the ’211 Patent”) (collectively, “the as-
`serted patents”). The ’135 and ’151 Patents generally
`describe a method of transparently creating a virtual
`private network (“VPN”) between a client computer
`and a target computer, while the ’504 and ’211 Pa-
`tents disclose a secure domain name service. On No-
`vember 6, 2012, a jury found that Apple’s accused
`VPN on Demand and FaceTime features infringed the
`asserted patents and that the asserted patents were
`not invalid (“2012 jury verdict”). Docket No. 790.
`
`

`

`6a
`Apple appealed the 2012 verdict to the Federal
`Circuit on multiple grounds. See VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco
`Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding of in-
`fringement by VPN on Demand and affirmed this
`Court’s denial of Apple’s motion for judgment as a
`matter of law on invalidity. Id. The Federal Circuit
`reversed the Court’s claim construction, holding that
`the term “secure communication link” requires both
`“security and anonymity” and vacated the infringe-
`ment finding for FaceTime. Id. The Federal Circuit
`also vacated the damages award for both VPN on De-
`mand and FaceTime because it found that the jury re-
`lied on a flawed damages model. Id. at 1314.
`On remand, this case was consolidated with Case
`No. 6:12-cv-855 and retried between January 25 and
`February 2, 2016. Docket No. 425 in Case No. 6:12-cv-
`855. Because of the consolidation and repeated refer-
`ences to the prior jury’s verdict in front of the jury, the
`Court granted a new trial and unconsolidated the
`cases. Docket No. 500 in Case No. 6:12-cv-855. The
`Court conducted another jury trial September 26 to
`30, 2016 on infringement for FaceTime and damages
`for both FaceTime and VPN on Demand.
`At trial, VirnetX asserted that FaceTime met the
`“anonymity” requirement of the “secure communica-
`tion link” limitation by allowing participants to com-
`municate behind third-party network address trans-
`lators (“NATs”). Docket No. 1036 (“Trial Tr. 9/30/16
`PM”) at 37:17–40:41. VirnetX’s technical expert, Dr.
`Mark Jones, testified that NATs hide the private IP
`addresses of the persons or devices participating in a
`
`

`

`7a
`FaceTime call and therefore prevent eavesdroppers
`on the public internet from being able to correlate spe-
`cific persons or devices behind the NAT routers par-
`ticipating in the call. Docket No. 1030 (“Trial Tr.
`9/27/16 AM”) at 48:10-51:18. VirnetX further asserted
`that it was entitled to a reasonable royalty of $1.20
`per unit, for a total of $302,427,950, for the infringe-
`ment of its patents by FaceTime and VPN on De-
`mand.2 Trial Tr. 9/30/16 PM at 50:16-20. VirnetX’s
`damages expert, Roy Weinstein, testified that, based
`on his analysis of comparable licenses, a reasonable
`royalty for Apple to pay for use of the asserted patents
`would be between $1.20 and $1.67 per unit. Docket
`No. 1032 (“Trial Tr. 9/28/16 PM”) at 7:15-11:25.
`Apple denied that FaceTime met the “anonymity”
`requirement of the “secure communication link” limi-
`tation. Trial Tr. 9/30/16 PM at 53:8-15. Apple’s tech-
`nical expert, Dr. Matthew Blaze, testified that
`FaceTime is not anonymous because eavesdroppers
`are able to obtain the public IP addresses of the de-
`vices participating in a FaceTime call. Docket
`No. 1035 (“Trial Tr. 9/30/16 AM”) at 20:20-21:1,
`114:17-21. Dr. Blaze further testified that the private
`IP addresses hidden by the NATs do not provide any
`meaningful anonymity. Trial Tr. 9/30/16 AM at
`68:10-69:8. Apple also asserted that, based on an
`analysis of the comparable licenses by its damages ex-
`pert, Christopher Bakewell, VirnetX was entitled to a
`royalty rate of no more than $0.10 per unit, for a total
`of $25,202,329, for the infringement of VPN on
`
`2 The jury was instructed that infringement by VPN on Demand
`was previously determined. Docket No 1021 at 4.
`
`

`

`8a
`Demand and FaceTime. Docket No. 1033 (“Trial Tr.
`9/29/16 AM”) 63:11-16, 115:2-20.
`On September 30, 2016, the jury returned a unan-
`imous verdict. The jury found that FaceTime in-
`fringed the ’211 and ’504 patents and awarded
`$302,427,950 in damages for the collective infringe-
`ment by the VPN on Demand and FaceTime features
`in the accused Apple products. Docket No. 1025.
`I. APPLE’S OMNIBUS MOTION FOR JUDG-
`MENT AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER
`RULE 50(b) AND FOR A NEW TRIAL
`Apple moves for judgment as a matter of law, or,
`alternatively, for a new trial, on non- infringement
`and damages. Docket No 1062 at 1. During the Sep-
`tember 2016 trial, Apple filed two Rule 50(a) motions
`before the case was submitted to the jury. Docket
`No. 1018; Docket No. 1019. In light of Apple’s
`Rule 50(b) motions, Apple’s Rule 50(a) motions
`(Docket Nos. 1018 and 1019) are DENIED-AS-
`MOOT. The Court therefore turns to Apple’s
`Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
`and for a New Trial (Docket No. 1062).
`A. Applicable Law Regarding Rule 50
`Judgment as a matter of law is only appropriate
`when “a reasonable jury would not have a legally suf-
`ficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that
`issue.” FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a). “The grant or denial of a
`motion for judgment as a matter of law is a procedural
`issue not unique to patent law, reviewed under the
`law of the regional circuit in which the appeal from
`
`

`

`9a
`the district court would usually lie.” Finisar Corp. v.
`DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2008). The Fifth Circuit “uses the same standard to
`review the verdict that the district court used in first
`passing on the motion.” Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d
`695, 699 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, a jury verdict must be
`upheld, and judgment as a matter of law may not be
`granted, unless “there is no legally sufficient eviden-
`tiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury
`did.” Id. at 700. “A jury verdict must stand unless
`there is a lack of substantial evidence, in the light
`most favorable to the successful party, to support the
`verdict.” Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space Al-
`liance, 378 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2004).
`A court reviews all evidence in the record and
`must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`nonmoving party; however, a court may not make
`credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as
`those are solely functions of the jury. See Reeves v.
`Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
`150-51 (2000) (“[A]lthough the court should review
`the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence
`favorable to the moving party that the jury is not re-
`quired to believe”). Under Fifth Circuit law, a court is
`to be “especially deferential” to a jury’s verdict, and
`must not reverse the jury’s findings unless they are
`not supported by substantial evidence. Baisden v. I’m
`Ready Productions, Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 499 (5th Cir.
`2012). Consequently, “[o]nly if there existed substan-
`tial evidence that would have led reasonable jurors to
`reach a differing conclusion, will this court overturn
`the district court’s judgment.” Hawkins v. Jones, 74
`F. App’x. 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Portis v. First
`
`

`

`10a
`Nat’l Bank of New Albany, Miss., 34 F.3d 325, 327-28
`(5th Cir. 1994)).
`B. Applicable Law Regarding Rule 59
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), a
`new trial may be granted on any or all issues “for any
`reason for which a new trial has heretofore been
`granted in an action at law in federal court.”
`Rule 59(a)(1)(A). The Federal Circuit reviews the
`question of a new trial under the law of the regional
`circuit. Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d
`1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “A new trial may be
`granted, for example, if the district court finds the
`verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the dam-
`ages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or
`prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Smith
`v. Transworld Drilling Co., 733 F.2d 610, 612-13 (5th
`Cir. 1985). “A motion for a new trial should not be
`granted unless the verdict is against the great weight
`of the evidence, not merely against the preponderance
`of the evidence.” Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automa-
`tion Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838-39 (5th Cir. 2004).
`C. Analysis
`Apple raises four main issues in its omnibus post-
`trial motion: (1) whether the evidence supports the
`jury’s finding of infringement; (2) whether the evi-
`dence supports the jury’s damages award; (3) whether
`Apple is entitled to a new trial on infringement; and
`(4) whether Apple is entitled to a new trial on dam-
`ages. See generally Docket No. 1062.
`
`

`

`11a
`1. Judgment as a Matter of Law of Non-
`infringement
`Apple seeks judgment as a matter of law of non-
`infringement, arguing that no reasonable jury could
`conclude that FaceTime’s peer-to-peer connection pro-
`vides the anonymity required by the Federal Circuit’s
`construction of “secure communication link.” Docket
`No. 1062 at 3. Apple also argues that VirnetX’s com-
`parison of FaceTime to VPN on Demand was im-
`proper and cannot provide substantial evidence of in-
`fringement. Id. at 7. Finally, Apple contends that
`FaceTime’s call-setup process and its dynamically
`changing IP addresses are irrelevant to whether
`FaceTime provides anonymity. Id.
`a. Applicable Law
`Infringement is a question of fact reviewed for
`substantial evidence. Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1332. To
`prove infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a plaintiff
`must show the presence of every element, or its equiv-
`alent, in the accused product or service. Lemelson v.
`United States, 752 F.2d 1538, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`First, the claim must be construed to determine its
`scope and meaning; and second, the construed claim
`must be compared to the accused device or service.
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659
`F.3d 1121, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Carroll Touch,
`Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576
`(Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`

`

`12a
`b. Discussion
`Apple contends that the evidence does not support
`a finding that FaceTime’s peer-to-peer connection
`provides anonymity. Id. at 3. Apple argues that it was
`undisputed that FaceTime itself does nothing to con-
`ceal IP addresses on the connection. Id. Apple states
`that FaceTime can work with NATs but argues that,
`because NATs are not part of FaceTime and because
`FaceTime does not require the use of NATs, VirnetX’s
`infringement should fail as a matter of law. Id.
`Apple further argues that there is no evidence to
`support a finding that NATs provide anonymity. Id.
`Apple contends that because NATs were a widespread
`and basic component of the internet prior to the in-
`vention, NATs could not provide this anonymity,
`which the Federal Circuit stated is “one of the pri-
`mary inventive contributions of the patent.” Id. at 4
`(quoting VirnetX, 767 F.3d at 1317). Apple states that
`Dr. Robert Short, the inventor, admitted this at trial
`by identifying NATs as a prior art system and stating
`that a figure in the patent that included NATs was
`not the way that he achieved anonymity. Id. (citing
`Trial Tr. 9/27/16 AM at 74:25-75:3).
`Apple contends that VirnetX’s infringement ex-
`pert, Dr. Jones, admitted that NATs do not hide pub-
`lic IP addresses and conceded that, though NATs hide
`private IP addresses, these private addresses do not
`contain any identifying significance. Id. at 5 (citing
`Docket No. 1030
`(“Trial Tr. 9/27/16 PM”) at
`48:22-49:1, 49:9-15, 123:24-124:3. Apple argues that,
`because NATs cannot hide public IP addresses, they
`are unable to prevent eavesdroppers from learning
`
`

`

`13a
`which websites companies are visiting, which Apple
`describes as “the one exemplary goal of anonymity
`provided in the patent.” Id. at 6. Finally, Apple states
`that Dr. Jones admitted that callers’ private IP ad-
`dresses are visible over the peer-to-peer connection.
`Id.
`
`Apple argues that VirnetX improperly relied on a
`comparison between FaceTime and VPN on Demand
`in order to prove infringement. Id. at 7. Apple con-
`tends that it is legally improper to compare products
`for infringement purposes. Id. (citing Amstar Corp. v.
`Envirotech Corp., 730 F.2d 1476, 1481-82 (Fed. Cir.
`1984)). Apple further states that the record was void
`of evidence as to why the previous jury found VPN on
`Demand to be anonymous and that the undisputed ev-
`idence at trial shows that VPN on Demand contained
`attributes of anonymity not present in FaceTime. Id.
`Finally, Apple contends that Dr. Jones’s testi-
`mony regarding FaceTime’s call-setup process and dy-
`namically changing IP addresses is irrelevant to the
`question of whether FaceTime is anonymous and
`therefore cannot support a finding of infringement.
`Id. Apple argues that the setup of the call is protected
`using an encrypted connection over the FaceTime
`servers and therefore cannot provide the anonymity
`required by the patents, which, Apple argues, require
`the secure communication link—identified by Dr.
`Jones as the separate peer-to-peer connection—to
`provide the anonymity. Id. at 7-8. Apple similarly con-
`tends that dynamically changing IP addresses cannot
`provide the required anonymity because the changing
`of an IP address is dependent on the policy of the
`
`

`

`14a
`internet service provider and therefore is not “pro-
`vided” by the direct communication link. Id. at 8.
`VirnetX responds that Apple’s motion for judg-
`ment as a matter of law on non-infringement should
`be denied because the evidence presented at trial
`proved that “FaceTime Servers ‘support establishing’
`a ‘direct communication link that provides data secu-
`rity and anonymity,’ “ as required by the patents.
`Docket No. 1065 at 1. VirnetX argues that the testi-
`mony of Dr. Jones that an Internet eavesdropper can-
`not correlate the specific persons or devices located
`behind NAT routers that are participating in a
`FaceTime call, along with the admission of Apple’s ex-
`pert, Dr. Blaze, that this inability to correlate consti-
`tutes a kind of anonymity, provides substantial evi-
`dence to support the jury’s verdict. Id. (citing Trial Tr.
`9/27/16 PM at 48:10-51:18; Trial Tr. 9/30/16 AM at
`124:4-5).
`VirnetX argues that, because Apple’s expert ad-
`mitted that NATs provide a type of anonymity, Apple
`is attempting to impose additional requirements to
`the Federal Circuit’s claim construction. Id. at 2. Vir-
`netX contends that Apple has waived any claim con-
`struction arguments by raising them for the first time
`after trial and argues that these arguments fail on the
`merits regardless. Id.
`VirnetX states that Apple’s argument that NATs
`cannot provide the required anonymity because they
`were present in the prior art is not legally relevant
`because Apple cannot prove non- infringement by
`comparing the accused system to the prior art. Id. at
`3 (citing Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. PDI Commc’n Sys.,
`
`

`

`15a
`Inc., 522 F.3d 1348, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). VirnetX
`next argues that even if the private IP addresses,
`which the NATs protect, tell an eavesdropper nothing
`about the particular device in communication, this
`address is a critical piece of information necessary to
`correlate the communication to a specific machine or
`person. Id. at 4 (citing Trial Tr. 9/27/16 PM at
`50:9-18). VirnetX therefore argues that the NATs’
`protection of the private IP addresses is sufficient to
`support a finding of infringement. Id.
`VirnetX contends that Apple’s argument that
`NATs are insufficient to support a finding of infringe-
`ment because they cannot achieve one of the exem-
`plary goals of the patents fails because the Court has
`already observed that this goal does not limit the
`claims. Id. (citing VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2009 WL 2370727, at *5 n.4 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2009).
`VirnetX further argues that Dr. Jones did not admit
`that private IP addresses are visible over the peer-to-
`peer connection, but instead stated only that the pri-
`vate IP address of the caller is visible during the link
`setup and is not visible over the link itself. Id. at 5
`(citing Trial Tr. 9/27/16 PM at 115:7-116:2). VirnetX
`also contends that, because FaceTime was designed to
`support establishing links between devices located be-
`hind NATs, Apple’s motion should be denied.
`VirnetX argues that its comparison between
`FaceTime and VPN on Demand was not necessary to
`support the verdict and was not legally improper. Id.
`at 6. VirnetX argues that it did not attempt to prove
`that FaceTime and VPN on Demand were identical,
`nor did it rely solely on a comparison between
`
`

`

`16a
`FaceTime and VPN to prove infringement, but in-
`stead compared FaceTime to the claims of the patent.
`Id. VirnetX further states that its comparison was rel-
`evant to rebut Apple’s argument that an eavesdrop-
`per’s ability to view a caller’s public IP address ren-
`dered FaceTime non-anonymous. Id.
`VirnetX also contends that Dr. Jones’s testimony
`on FaceTime’s setup process and on the dynamically
`changing IP addresses, while not necessary to uphold
`the jury’s finding of infringement, offers additional
`support. Id. VirnetX argues that the setup process is
`relevant because it sends identifying information over
`FaceTime’s servers, removing any need to send that
`information over the peer-to-peer connection on the
`open internet. Id. at 7. VirnetX also contends that Ap-
`ple’s choice to design the system to use IP addresses,
`which regularly change, provides additional anonym-
`ity to FaceTime calls. Id.
`The evidence presented at trial supports a finding
`that a reasonable jury could determine that FaceTime
`supports “a direct communication link that provides
`data security and anonymity,” as required by the Fed-
`eral Circuit’s claim construction. See VirnetX, Inc. v.
`Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Apple admits that FaceTime supports a communica-
`tion link between devices located behind NATs, see
`Docket No. 1062 at 3, and VirnetX presented evidence
`at trial that NATs provide anonymity by hiding the
`users private IP address, see Trial Tr. 9/27/16 PM at
`48:10-51:18, 49:5-7, 124:16-125:5; Trial Tr. 9/30/16
`AM at 98:3-9, 141:10-20, 124:4-5. In light of this tes-
`timony, the Court finds that there was substantial
`
`

`

`17a
`evidence for the jury to conclude that FaceTime sup-
`ports a direct-communication link that provides ano-
`nymity.
`Apple’s arguments to the contrary are unpersua-
`sive. The presence of NATs in the prior art is unre-
`lated to non-infringement, and the fact that NATs are
`not a part of FaceTime is irrelevant because the
`claims only require the system to “support establish-
`ing” a direct communication link that provides ano-
`nymity. Similarly, the system’s ability to meet an ex-
`emplary goal listed in the patent specification is irrel-
`evant, as the Court has already observed that this
`language does not limit the claims. See VirnetX, Inc.
`v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 WL 2370727, at *5 n.4 (E.D.
`Tex. July 30, 2009). Finally, VirnetX’s comparison of
`FaceTime to VPN on Demand and testimony regard-
`ing the FaceTime call-setup process and the dynamic
`nature of IP addresses, while not necessary to uphold
`the jury’s verdict, was relevant to respond to Apple’s
`trial arguments and offers further support for the
`jury’s finding of infringement.
`Accordingly, Apple’s motion for judgment as a
`matter of law of non-infringement is DENIED.
`2. Judgment as a Matter of Law on
`Damages
`Apple argues that the testimony of VirnetX’s
`damages expert, Mr. Weinstein, shows that the jury’s
`damages verdict did not have a legally sufficient ba-
`sis. Docket No. 1062 at 10. Apple contends that Vir-
`netX presented no “particularized expert testimony
`explaining how various differences between the real
`
`

`

`18a
`and hypothetical license negotiations … would factor
`into the appropriate royalty for [Apple’s] infringe-
`ment” that would have permitted the jury to arrive at
`over $302 million in damages. Id. (citing Lucent
`Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1329
`(Fed. Cir. 2009)). Apple states that the only economi-
`cally reliable evidence establishes that the royalty
`rate could not be more than $0.10 per unit, well below
`the $1.20 per-unit rate awarded by the jury.
`Apple argues that Mr. Weinstein’s damages
`model does not apportion the incremental value that
`the patented invention added to the end product. Id.
`at 10-11 (citing CSIRO v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 809 F.3d
`1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Apple contends that Mr.
`Weinstein relied on VirnetX’s licensing policy and
`suggests that there is no evidence in the record that
`the licensing policy is apportioned. Id. at 12. Apple ar-
`gues that the testimony of Kendall Larsen, VirnetX’s
`president, who stated that VirnetX’s policy was to li-
`cense its patents as a family, shows that the licenses
`upon which Mr. Weinstein relied are not apportioned.
`Id.
`
`Apple states that Mr. Weinstein admitted that his
`per-unit rates are not apportioned for the accused
`products or features. Id. at 13. Though Mr. Weinstein
`claimed his $1.20 rate was apportioned because he in-
`cluded only revenues related to Voice over Internet
`Protocol (“VoIP”) phones, Apple contends that there is
`no proof in the record that these rates reflect the value
`of VirnetX’s technology in those phones and that Mr.
`Weinstein admitted that VirnetX does not charge the
`same rate to all its licensees. Id. Further, Apple
`
`

`

`19a
`argues that Mr. Weinstein admitted that Apple de-
`vices are far more complex that VoIP phones but
`made no adjustment for this difference. Id.
`Apple states that Mr. Weinstein relied on the
`value of VPN on Demand and FaceTime and not on
`the value that VirnetX’s technology added to those
`features. Id. at 14. Apple argues that this reliance was
`inappropriate because both features have modes that
`indisputably do not incorporate the patented technol-
`ogy and because both features include other, unac-
`counted-for technologies not patented by VirnetX. Id.
`Apple further contends that Mr. Weinstein did not ac-
`count for the fact that each of the license agreements
`in his analysis included licenses to more patents than
`were at issue in this case and that Mr. Weinstein
`failed to account for that difference. Id. at 15-16.
`Apple next argues that the VoIP licenses relied on
`by Mr. Weinstein were not sufficiently comparable to
`the Apple devices and therefore cannot support the
`damages award. Id. at 16. Apple first contends that
`Mr. Weinstein made no adjustment to render the
`VoIP licenses comparable to the license that VirnetX
`and Apple would have negotiated in a hypothetical
`negotiation. Id. Next, Apple argues that Mr. Wein-
`stein admitted that several of the companies whose
`licenses Mr. Weinstein relied on do not compete with
`Apple and that the licensed VoIP phones are far less
`complex than the accused Apple devices. Id. at 16-17.
`Third, Apple states that the VoIP licenses are not
`comparable because each was entered into in 2012
`and 2013, well after the June 2009 hypothetical nego-
`tiation. Id. at 17. Fourth, Apple states that the
`
`

`

`20a
`royalties paid under the VoIP licenses do not reflect
`the value of the patented technology and instead re-
`flect the value of avoiding litigation. Id. Finally, Apple
`contends that the low number of units (5.2 million
`combined units) and
`low amount of royalties
`($14.1 million combined) that were subject to the
`VoIP licenses (and which were estimated through
`2022) undermine their comparability and reliability.
`Id. at 18.
`Apple also argues that Mr. Weinstein’s damages
`model violated the entire market value rule. Id. Apple
`states that there was no showing that VirnetX’s pa-
`tented technology drives sales of Apple’s products and
`argues that VirnetX nonetheless presented a dam-
`ages model at trial that relied on percentage-based
`rates applied to Apple’s end-product revenues. Id. at
`19. Apple argues that VirnetX introduced testimony
`regarding its licensing policy, which applies a one to
`two percent royalty rate to end-product prices, then
`relied on the percentage-based royalty rates in its
`VoIP licenses, which are applied to end-product
`prices. Id. Apple further contends that VirnetX elic-
`ited the price of the licensees’ products and compared
`that price to the price of Apple’s accused devices. Id.
`Apple argues that by giving the jury these pieces of
`information, VirnetX invited the jury to apply a per-
`centage-based royalty to the entire revenue of the ac-
`cused devices, which is the same model the Federal
`Circuit held to be legally erroneous in the first appeal.
`Id.
`
`Apple next contends that it is entitled to a partial
`offset of any damages award for products that are
`
`

`

`21a
`already licensed, including, for example, accused de-
`vices that already include Skype. Id. at 20. Apple
`states that Skype is available for download on the ac-
`cused devices and argues that these devices that con-
`tain Skype are already licensed, rendering any award
`for those devices impermissible. Id. (citing Aero
`Prods., Int’l v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000,
`1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Bowers v. Baystate
`Techs., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`Finally, Apple argues that no reasonable jury
`could award more than $25.2 million in damages. Id.
`at 21. Apple states that the $1.20 per-unit rate offered
`by Mr. Weinstein and adopted by the jury is the eco-
`nomically unsound average of Mr. Weinstein’s trans-
`lated per-unit rates from the five VoIP licenses and
`the Microsoft license. Id. Apple contends that of the
`licenses considered by Mr. Weinstein, only the Mi-
`crosoft license was comparable because it was the
`only license to include products with as many features
`as the accused products. Id. Apple states that Mr.
`Weinstein admitted that his rate for the Microsoft li-
`cense, $0.19 per unit, was flawed because it did not
`account for Microsoft’s foreign sales. Apple argues
`that Mr. Weinstein admitted that if these sales were
`taken into account, the royalty rate would be $0.10
`per unit, which would lead to a damages award of ap-
`proximately $25.2 million. Id.
`In response, VirnetX argues that Apple is inap-
`propriately re-urging its failed Daubert motion
`against Mr. Weinstein’s theory and requests that the
`Court decline to consider Apple’s Rule 50 arguments
`relating to his damages theory. Docket No. 1065 at 8
`
`

`

`22a
`(citing Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung El-
`ecs. Co., Ltd., et al., 2016 WL 362540, *3-4 (E.D. Tex.
`Jan. 29, 2016) (declining to consider JMOL argu-
`ments previously made in a Daubert motion and stat-
`ing that “[t]he Federal Circuit held that a JMOL is
`not the appropriate context for renewing attacks on
`an expert’s methodology”)). VirnetX further states
`that Apple’s arguments are factually and legally in-
`correct and that VirnetX has met its burden of proof
`on damages through Mr. Weinstein’s testimony. Id.
`VirnetX states that Mr. Weinstein’s damages
`opinions were properly apportioned and based on
`comparable licenses. Id. at 9. VirnetX contends that
`Mr. Weinstein’s analysis was based on actual agree-
`ments in which companies paid an apportioned value
`to VirnetX for the patented technology and that he
`therefore did not need to present all the details of how
`the VirnetX licensing policy was apportioned to the
`patents-in-suit because the real-world market had al-
`ready done the apportionment for him. Id. VirnetX ar-
`gues that Apple’s argument against Mr. Weinstein’s
`damages is therefore one of evidentiary weight and is
`not an appropriate ground for judgment as a matter
`of law. Id. at 12.
`VirnetX
`further states that Mr. Weinstein
`properly apportioned his royalty rate to account for
`unpatented technology. Id. VirnetX argues that the
`fact that VirnetX charges less as products become
`more complex, as reflected in the different royalty
`rates charged to companies, shows that Mr. Wein-
`stein’s model is apportioned to Apple’s products. Id. at
`13. VirnetX also argues that the fact that the per-unit
`
`

`

`23a
`rate applied to Apple is much lower than the one to
`two percent of revenue that VirnetX licensees typi-
`cally pay. Id. VirnetX states that Apple has no legal
`support for its argument that Mr. Weinstein was also
`required to identify the value of the unpatented fea-
`tures of the accused products and contends that Ap-
`ple’s damages expert, Christopher Bakewell, also
`failed to identify the value of these features. Id. Vir-
`netX further argues that Apple has cited no evidence
`that its customers use the unpatented elements of the
`VPN on Demand and FaceTime or that the features
`provide any value to its customers. Id. at 14.
`VirnetX next states that Mr. Weinstein properly
`accounted for the differences between VirnetX’s li-
`censes that support his damages theory and the hypo-
`thetical negotiation by carefully distinguishing facts
`related to the comparability of VirnetX’s licenses in
`discussing Georgia- Pacific Factor 1. Id. at 15. Vir-
`netX argues that the Federal Circuit has already held
`that the licenses are sufficiently comparable to form
`the basis of a royalty rate

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