throbber
Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 59 PageID #: 43039
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CAUSE NO. 6:10-CV-417
`XXXXXXXXX-
`UNSEALED 10-13-2017
`






`
`§ §
`
`





`
`VIRNETX INC. and SCIENCE
`APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
`CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 2 of 59 PageID #: 43040
`
`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 submissions 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;
`
` 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 Regarding 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.
`
`1 Unless noted otherwise, all references to the docket refer to Case No. 6:10-cv-417.
`
`Page 1 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 3 of 59 PageID #: 43041
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed this action against Apple alleging that Apple infringed
`
`U.S. Patent 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 asserted 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 Patents disclose
`
`a secure domain name service. On November 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.
`
`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 infringement 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 infringement finding for FaceTime. Id. The Federal Circuit also
`
`vacated the damages award for both VPN on Demand and FaceTime because it found that the jury
`
`relied 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 references 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.
`
`Page 2 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 4 of 59 PageID #: 43042
`
`At trial, VirnetX asserted that FaceTime met the “anonymity” requirement of the “secure
`
`communication link” limitation by allowing participants to communicate behind third-party
`
`network address translators (“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 FaceTime call and therefore prevent eavesdroppers on the
`
`public internet from being able to correlate specific persons or devices behind the NAT routers
`
`participating 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 infringement of its patents by FaceTime and VPN on Demand.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” limitation. Trial Tr. 9/30/16 PM at 53:8–15. Apple’s technical expert, Dr.
`
`Matthew Blaze, testified that FaceTime is not anonymous because eavesdroppers are able to obtain
`
`the public IP addresses of the devices 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 expert, Christopher Bakewell, VirnetX was entitled to a royalty rate of no more than
`
`2 The jury was instructed that infringement by VPN on Demand was previously determined. Docket No 1021 at 4.
`
`Page 3 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 5 of 59 PageID #: 43043
`
`$0.10 per unit, for a total of $25,202,329, for the infringement of VPN on 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 unanimous verdict. The jury found that
`
`FaceTime infringed the ’211 and ’504 patents and awarded $302,427,950 in damages for the
`
`collective infringement by the VPN on Demand and FaceTime features in the accused Apple
`
`products. Docket No. 1025.
`
`I.
`
`APPLE’S OMNIBUS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 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 September 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 sufficient 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 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 evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did.” Id. at 700. “A
`
`Page 4 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 6 of 59 PageID #: 43044
`
`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 Alliance,
`
`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 required 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
`
`substantial 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 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 damages 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
`
`Page 5 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 7 of 59 PageID #: 43045
`
`weight of the evidence, not merely against the preponderance of the evidence.” Dresser-Rand Co.
`
`v. Virtual Automation 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 evidence 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 damages. See generally Docket No. 1062.
`
`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 provides the anonymity required by
`
`the Federal Circuit’s construction of “secure communication link.” Docket No. 1062 at 3. Apple
`
`also argues that VirnetX’s comparison of FaceTime to VPN on Demand was improper and cannot
`
`provide substantial evidence of infringement. 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 equivalent, 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)).
`
`Page 6 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 8 of 59 PageID #: 43046
`
`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 conceal 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 invention, NATs could not provide this anonymity, which the Federal
`
`Circuit stated is “one of the primary 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 expert, Dr. Jones, admitted that NATs do not
`
`hide public 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 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
`
`addresses 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 contends that it is legally improper to
`
`Page 7 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 9 of 59 PageID #: 43047
`
`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
`
`evidence at trial shows that VPN on Demand contained attributes of anonymity not present in
`
`FaceTime. Id.
`
` Finally, Apple contends that Dr. Jones’s testimony regarding FaceTime’s call-setup
`
`process and dynamically 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 contends that dynamically changing IP
`
`addresses cannot provide the required anonymity because the changing of an IP address is
`
`dependent on the policy of the internet service provider and therefore is not “provided” by the
`
`direct communication link. Id. at 8.
`
`VirnetX responds that Apple’s motion for judgment 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 security and anonymity,’ ” as
`
`required by the patents. Docket No. 1065 at 1. VirnetX argues that the testimony of Dr. Jones
`
`that an Internet eavesdropper cannot correlate the specific persons or devices located behind NAT
`
`routers that are participating in a FaceTime call, along with the admission of Apple’s expert, Dr.
`
`Blaze, that this inability to correlate constitutes a kind of anonymity, provides substantial evidence
`
`Page 8 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 10 of 59 PageID #: 43048
`
`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 admitted that NATs provide a type of
`
`anonymity, Apple is attempting to impose additional requirements to the Federal Circuit’s claim
`
`construction. Id. at 2. VirnetX contends that Apple has waived any claim construction 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., 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
`
`infringement because they cannot achieve one of the exemplary 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 private 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
`
`Page 9 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 11 of 59 PageID #: 43049
`
`also contends that, because FaceTime was designed to support establishing links between devices
`
`located behind 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 FaceTime and VPN to prove infringement, but instead compared FaceTime
`
`to the claims of the patent. Id. VirnetX further states that its comparison was relevant to rebut
`
`Apple’s argument that an eavesdropper’s ability to view a caller’s public IP address rendered
`
`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 Apple’s choice to design the system to use IP addresses, which regularly change, provides
`
`additional anonymity 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 Federal 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 communication 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.
`
`Page 10 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 12 of 59 PageID #: 43050
`
`In light of this testimony, the Court finds that there was substantial evidence for the jury to
`
`conclude that FaceTime supports a direct-communication link that provides anonymity.
`
`Apple’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. The presence of NATs in the prior art
`
`is unrelated 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 establishing” a direct communication link
`
`that provides anonymity. Similarly, the system’s ability to meet an exemplary goal listed in the
`
`patent specification is irrelevant, 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
`
`regarding 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 basis. Docket No. 1062 at 10. Apple
`
`contends that VirnetX presented no “particularized expert testimony explaining how various
`
`differences between the real and hypothetical license negotiations . . . would factor into the
`
`appropriate royalty for [Apple’s] infringement” 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 economically reliable evidence establishes that the
`
`Page 11 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 13 of 59 PageID #: 43051
`
`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 argues that the testimony of Kendall Larsen, VirnetX’s
`
`president, who stated that VirnetX’s policy was to license 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 included 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 argues that Mr. Weinstein admitted
`
`that Apple devices 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 technology and because both features include other, unaccounted-for
`
`technologies not patented by VirnetX. Id. Apple further contends that Mr. Weinstein did not
`
`account for the fact that each of the license agreements in his analysis included licenses to more
`
`Page 12 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 14 of 59 PageID #: 43052
`
`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. Weinstein 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 negotiation. Id. at 17. Fourth, Apple states that the royalties paid under the VoIP
`
`licenses do not reflect the value of the patented technology and instead reflect 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 patented technology drives sales
`
`of Apple’s products and argues that VirnetX nonetheless presented a damages 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
`
`elicited the price of the licensees’ products and compared that price to the price of Apple’s accused
`
`Page 13 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 15 of 59 PageID #: 43053
`
`devices. Id. Apple argues that by giving the jury these pieces of information, VirnetX invited the
`
`jury to apply a percentage-based royalty to the entire revenue of the accused 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 already licensed, including, for example, accused devices that already include Skype. Id.
`
`at 20. Apple states that Skype is available for download on the accused devices and argues that
`
`these devices that contain 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 economically unsound average of Mr. Weinstein’s translated 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 Microsoft 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 license, $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 approximately $25.2 million. Id.
`
`In response, VirnetX argues that Apple is inappropriately 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 (citing Rembrandt
`
`Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., 2016 WL 362540, *3–4 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`
`Page 14 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 16 of 59 PageID #: 43054
`
`29, 2016) (declining to consider JMOL arguments previously made in a Daubert motion and
`
`stating 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 incorrect and that VirnetX has met its burden of proof on damages through Mr.
`
`Weinstein’s tesimony. 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 agreements 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 already done the
`
`apportionment for him. Id. VirnetX argues 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. Weinstein’s model is apportioned to Apple’s products. Id. at 13. VirnetX also argues that the
`
`fact that the per-unit rate applied to Apple is much lower than the one to two percent of revenue
`
`that VirnetX licensees typically 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 features of
`
`the accused products and contends that Apple’s damages expert, Christopher Bakewell, also failed
`
`to identify the value of these features. Id. VirnetX further argues that Apple has cited no evidence
`
`Page 15 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:10-cv-00417-RWS Document 1079 Filed 09/29/17 Page 17 of 59 PageID #: 43055
`
`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 licenses that support his damages theory and the hypothetical negotiation by carefully
`
`distinguishing facts related to the comparability of VirnetX’s licenses in discussing Georgia-
`
`Pacific Factor 1. Id. at 15. VirnetX argues that the Federal Circuit has already

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