NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 6:11-cv-00563-RWS, 6:12-
`cv-00855-RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.
`Decided: November 22, 2019


`JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
`DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appellees. Plaintiff-appellee
`VirnetX Inc. also represented by JAMES A. BARTA, MICHAEL
`AUSTIN CURRY, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, TX.
`Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee Leidos, Inc.
` WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
`Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant.
` ______________________
`Before LOURIE, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
`VirnetX Inc. and Leidos, Inc. (together, VirnetX)
`brought this case against Apple Inc., alleging that Apple
`infringed four VirnetX patents. The district court entered
`summary judgment for VirnetX on invalidity, determining
`that Apple was precluded from pressing its proposed inva-
`lidity challenges because of previous litigation between the
`parties. A jury found for VirnetX on infringement and
`awarded roughly $503 million as a reasonable royalty,
`equal to a rate of $1.20 for each device whose sale by Apple
`infringed. The district court denied Apple’s post-trial mo-
`tion for judgment as a matter of law and entered a final
`judgment for VirnetX.


`Apple appeals. We affirm the district court’s determi-
`nation that Apple is precluded by the prior litigation from
`pressing its proposed invalidity challenges. We affirm the
`judgment of infringement as to two of the patents but re-
`verse as to two others. In light of our partial reversal on
`infringement, we vacate the damages award and remand
`for the district court to consider whether it can and should
`enter a revised award without conducting a new trial and,
`if not, to hold a new trial limited to damages.
`VirnetX owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504,
`7,490,151, and 7,921,211, the patents asserted in this case.
`Those patents are related to and claim improvements over
`VirnetX’s U.S. Patent No. 7,010,604, which is not at issue
`in this appeal. The ’604 patent describes Virtual Private
`Network (VPN) techniques for securely and privately
`transmitting communications over public networks. In
`particular, it describes a method in which a data packet is
`sent through a randomized series of servers before reach-
`ing its final destination. ’604 patent, col. 3, lines 3–12. An
`intermediate server in the series may send the packet to its
`final destination or to another randomly selected server,
`subject to the constraint that each packet must stop at a
`minimum number of intermediate servers before being
`sent to its final destination. Id., col. 3, lines 29–37. The
`recipient’s identity is thereby obscured, enhancing privacy.
`The ’135, ’151, ’504, and ’211 patents claim improve-
`ments of existing VPN methods, such as the ’604 patent’s
`method. The parties group the ’135 and ’151 patents to-
`gether and the ’504 and ’211 patents together.
`The ’135 patent teaches a method of automatically es-
`tablishing a VPN in response to a domain name inquiry.
`’135 patent, col. 47, lines 20–32. Claim 1 is representative
`of the asserted claims of the ’135 patent:


`1. A method of transparently creating a virtual pri-
`vate network (VPN) between a client computer and
`a target computer, comprising the steps of:
`(1) generating from the client computer a Do-
`main Name Service (DNS) request that re-
`quests an IP [internet protocol] address
`corresponding to a domain name associated
`with the target computer;
`(2) determining whether the DNS request
`transmitted in step (1) is requesting access to a
`secure website; and
`(3) in response to determining that the DNS re-
`quest in step (2) is requesting access to a secure
`target web site, automatically initiating the
`VPN between the client computer and the tar-
`get computer.
`Id.; see also ’151 patent, col. 48, lines 18–29 (claim 13). The
`’151 patent issued from a divisional of the ’135 patent’s ap-
`plication, so the two patents share a specification.
`Whereas the ’135 patent recites a method claim, the ’151
`patent recites a “computer readable medium” capable of ex-
`ecuting a set of instructions. ’151 patent, col. 48, lines 18–
`29. Claim 13 is the only asserted claim of the ’151 patent:
`13. A computer readable medium storing a domain
`name server (DNS) module comprised of computer
`readable instructions that, when executed, cause a
`data processing device to perform the steps of:
`(i) determining whether a DNS request sent by
`a client corresponds to a secure server;
`(ii) when the DNS request does not correspond
`to a secure server, forwarding the DNS request
`to a DNS function that returns an IP address
`of a nonsecure computer; and


`(iii) when the intercepted DNS request corre-
`sponds to a secure server, automatically creat-
`ing a secure channel between the client and the
`secure server.
`The ’504 patent and the ’211 patent make up the sec-
`ond group of patents at issue in this case. The ’504 patent,
`which issued from a continuation-in-part of the ’135 pa-
`tent’s application, describes certain logistical aspects of a
`secure communication link between computer nodes, in-
`cluding a repository of names and network addresses. ’504
`patent, col. 55, lines 49–56. Claim 1 is representative of
`the asserted claims of the ’504 patent:
`1. A system for providing a domain name service
`for establishing a secure communication link, the
`system comprising:
`A domain name service system configured to be
`connected to a communication network, to
`store a plurality of domain names and corre-
`sponding network addresses, to receive a query
`for a network address, and to comprise an indi-
`cation that the domain name service system
`supports establishing a secure communication
`Id.; see also ’211 patent, col. 57, lines 38–46 (claim 36). The
`’211 patent issued from a continuation of the ’504 patent’s
`application, so the two patents share a specification.
`Whereas the ’504 patent recites a system claim, the ’211
`patent claims a “machine-readable medium” comprising in-
`structions for establishing the system. ’211 patent, col. 57,
`lines 38–46.
`Apple designs and sells mobile devices. Over time, var-
`ious such devices have used different versions of Apple’s


`iOS operating system. Many of the devices at issue here
`included a VPN on Demand application. All the devices at
`issue included a FaceTime application.
`VPN on Demand allows an Apple device to communi-
`cate with a secure website, generally one hosted by a pri-
`vate server and protected by a firewall, by establishing a
`VPN between the device and the private server. Before Ap-
`ple released iOS 7, VPN on Demand had two modes of op-
`eration: “Always” and “If Needed.” For both modes, a user
`created a list of websites, indicated by domain names, that
`the user wanted to be able to access, at least some of the
`time, through a VPN. If the user selected “Always” mode,
`VPN on Demand established a VPN connection any time
`the user requested access to a domain name on the list. By
`contrast, if the user selected “If Needed” mode, VPN on De-
`mand first attempted to connect to any requested website,
`including one on the list, without a VPN; only if the request
`failed—commonly, because a firewall stopped the re-
`quest—did VPN on Demand establish a VPN.
`FaceTime allows Apple devices to have secure audio
`and video communication sessions (calls) between devices
`in which the FaceTime application is installed. Before Ap-
`ple released iOS 7, a user (the caller) initiated a FaceTime
`call by selecting another user (the receiver) from the
`caller’s list of contacts. The calling device constructed a
`message—containing the calling device’s IP address and
`certificate, the receiving device’s Apple ID, and a push to-
`ken—and sent that message to a dedicated FaceTime
`server. When the FaceTime server received the message,
`it used the calling device’s certificate to confirm that the
`calling device was registered with FaceTime and used the
`receiving device’s Apple ID to obtain the receiving device’s
`IP address. Then, the server constructed a message with
`information about the calling device—its IP address and a
`session token—and sent that message to the receiving de-
`vice. If the receiver accepted the call, the receiving device
`constructed a new message containing information about


`itself—its IP address, its certificate, a push token, and a
`session token—and sent that message back to the
`FaceTime server. Finally, the FaceTime server sent the
`receiving device’s IP address and certificate to the calling
`device, which allowed the two devices to establish a secure
`In 2010, VirnetX sued Apple for patent infringement
`based on Apple’s use and sale of mobile devices running on
`iOS (the “417” litigation, reflecting the district court’s
`docket number). VirnetX relied on the “Always” mode of
`VPN on Demand to allege that Apple infringed the ’135 and
`’151 patents and on FaceTime to allege that Apple in-
`fringed the ’504 and ’211 patents. Apple counterclaimed
`that each asserted claim was invalid. The case proceeded
`toward trial and in September 2012, VirnetX and Apple
`submitted a proposed joint final pretrial order. In that or-
`der, Apple indicated that it intended to press several inva-
`lidity theories at trial: anticipation, obviousness, written
`description, enablement, derivation, double patenting, and
`non-joinder of an alleged co-inventor. Apple submitted nu-
`merous prior-art references and extensive expert reports
`on invalidity. On October 22, 2012, the district court
`granted VirnetX partial summary judgment rejecting the
`derivation and non-joinder challenges. J.A. 25476, 25486.
` On October 25, 2012, a week before trial was set to
`begin, Apple filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the re-
`mainder of its invalidity counterclaims. J.A. 25487–90.
`The district court denied Apple’s motion. See J.A. 25591–
`92. Then, at trial, Apple informed the court that it would
`present only one invalidity challenge—an anticipation
`challenge based on a 1996 article by Takahiro Kiuchi and
`Shigekoto Kaihara (Kiuchi). Thereafter, the court entered
`judgment as a matter of law rejecting all of Apple’s other
`invalidity counterclaims.


` On November 6, 2012, a jury found that Apple had in-
`fringed all asserted claims. The jury also found that Apple
`had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
`that the claims were anticipated by Kiuchi. Based on Vir-
`netX’s evidence at trial, the jury awarded VirnetX
`$368,160,000 as a reasonable royalty for Apple’s use of Vir-
`netX’s inventions.
`On the day the jury returned a verdict in the 417 liti-
`gation, VirnetX filed the present infringement action
`against Apple. This case (the “855” litigation, again reflect-
`ing the district court’s docket number) involves redesigned
`versions of VPN on Demand and FaceTime.
`The redesigned version of VPN on Demand, found in
`iOS 7 and later versions of iOS, replaced the “Always” and
`“If Needed” modes with different sets of rules defining op-
`tions for the user. One of the new features, “EvaluateCon-
`nection,” is similar to the “Always” mode. To operate
`“EvaluateConnection,” a user puts into the “Domains” list
`websites for which the user desires a secure connection.
`Later, when the user enters a domain name in a standard
`web browser, VPN on Demand checks whether the name is
`on the “Domains” list. Whereas the “Always” mode would
`have established a VPN connection at this step, “Evaluate
`Connection” causes the redesigned version to go through
`additional steps. Before establishing a VPN, the rede-
`signed version sends a domain name request to the local
`domain name server on the network to which the device is
`connected. If this request fails, and the user has enabled
`the “ConnectIfNeeded” option—one of the choices within
`the “EvaluateConnection” feature—VPN on Demand es-
`tablishes a VPN. But if the request succeeds, VPN on De-
`mand does not establish a VPN. Evidence at trial
`explained the logic: whether a VPN is necessary for a se-
`cure connection turns on the user device’s “location” vis-à-
`vis a private network. In particular, a failed request for


`the IP address of a server hosted on a private network in-
`dicates that the user device is outside that private network,
`so a VPN is required for secure, private communications;
`in contrast, a successful request for such a server’s IP ad-
`dress indicates that the user device is inside the private
`network and thus does not need a VPN for secure, private
`The redesigned version of FaceTime operates in largely
`the same way as the earlier version already found to in-
`fringe, but with one change that Apple contends is signifi-
`cant to the question of infringement of the ’504 and ’211
`patents. In the redesigned version, the final message from
`the FaceTime server to the calling device does not include
`the receiving device’s IP address. Because the receiving
`device knows the address of the calling device but not vice
`versa, the receiving device must initiate the communica-
`tion through what Apple calls the “ICE protocol.” The re-
`ceiving device sends encrypted data packets to the calling
`device, and those data packets include the receiving de-
`vice’s IP address. Once the calling device decrypts the data
`packets, the two devices can establish a secure communi-
`In the 855 litigation before us, Apple again counter-
`claimed that the asserted patents are invalid under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. In August 2014, the dis-
`trict court granted VirnetX’s motion for summary judg-
`ment on Apple’s invalidity counterclaims. J.A. 5–9. The
`district court held that issue preclusion prevented Apple
`from pursuing its invalidity challenges because Apple had
`already lost on the invalidity challenges in the 417 litiga-
`tion. The only invalidity challenges Apple places in issue
`on appeal are obviousness and non-joinder of an alleged co-
`inventor. Brief for Appellant at 58; Reply Brief at 25.
`In April 2018, a jury found that Apple’s redesigned ver-
`sion of VPN on Demand infringed all asserted claims of the
`’135 and ’151 patents and that Apple’s redesigned version


`of FaceTime infringed all asserted claims of the ’504 and
`’211 patents. Based on VirnetX’s evidence at trial, the jury
`awarded VirnetX $502,567,709 as a reasonable royalty for
`Apple’s use and sale of VirnetX’s inventions. Apple filed a
`motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the district
`court denied the motion and entered judgment for VirnetX.
`Apple timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdic-
`tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
` We review the district court’s ruling on issue preclusion
`de novo, following the Fifth Circuit. Wills v. Arizon Struc-
`tures Worldwide, LLC, 824 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2016);
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC,
`887 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (applying regional cir-
`cuit law). We review the grant of summary judgment de
`novo and apply the “same criteria employed by the district
`court.” Waste Mgmt. of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. River Birch,
`Inc., 920 F.3d 958, 964 (5th Cir. 2019); Eli Lilly & Co. v.
`Hospira, Inc., 933 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (apply-
`ing regional circuit law). We review the denial of a motion
`for judgment as a matter of law de novo and ask whether
`the underlying jury findings were supported by substantial
`evidence. See Apache Deepwater, L.L.C. v. W&T Offshore,
`Inc., 930 F.3d 647, 652–53 (5th Cir. 2019); Elbit Systems
`Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, 927
`F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (following Fifth Circuit
`law). We review a claim construction de novo and any un-
`derlying factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for
`clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.
`Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
` We begin with Apple’s challenge to the district court’s
`conclusion that, because of what transpired in the earlier
`417 litigation, issue preclusion bars Apple from presenting
`the invalidity challenges it raised in this litigation—


`specifically, an obviousness challenge and a non-joinder
`challenger. We agree with the district court. We follow
`regional circuit law on the non-patent-specific matter of
`whether issue preclusion’s requirement of “actual litiga-
`tion” is satisfied when, in an earlier case, the party has
`taken a vigorously contested claim through extensive dis-
`covery all the way to trial, then lost on the issue after
`choosing not to present evidence on it. See Voter Verified,
`887 F.3d at 1382–83 (applying regional circuit’s law to non-
`patent-specific aspect of preclusion law).
`The doctrine of issue preclusion prevents “successive
`litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and
`resolved in a valid court determination essential to the
`prior judgment, whether or not the issue arises on the same
`or a different claim.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S.
`742, 748–49 (2001). Only the requirement of actual litiga-
`tion and resolution is contested here. We conclude that
`each of the invalidity challenges Apple now asserts was ac-
`tually litigated and resolved in the 417 litigation. We
`therefore affirm the district court’s determination that Ap-
`ple is precluded from raising these invalidity challenges in
`the present case.
`In the 417 litigation, Apple asserted that VirnetX’s four
`patents are invalid based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`and 112. See, e.g., Apple’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses,
`and Counterclaims to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint
`at 9, Dkt. # 257 (Apr. 16, 2012). Just a month before trial,
`moreover, after extensive discovery and the submission of
`expert reports, the parties jointly submitted a pretrial or-
`der. Apple there continued to assert invalidity challenges
`based on anticipation, obviousness, written description, en-
`ablement, double patenting, derivation, and non-joinder.
`J.A. 25452–53 (pretrial order).
`The district court granted summary judgment rejecting
`Apple’s non-joinder challenge (along with its derivation
`challenge). J.A. 25476, 25486. Although Apple then tried


`to voluntarily dismiss the remaining invalidity challenges
`without prejudice on the eve of trial, the district court de-
`nied the request, telling Apple that it could dismiss those
`challenges only with prejudice. J.A. 25591–92. Apple de-
`clined to do so, and the invalidity challenges (besides non-
`joinder and derivation) were still alive when trial began.
`J.A. 25592. At trial, Apple informed the district court and
`VirnetX that it intended to present only an anticipation
`claim based on the Kiuchi reference. J.A. 25980. When the
`district court asked Apple if this decision meant that Apple
`was “dismissing” the rest of its invalidity claims, VirnetX
`interjected and reminded the district court that Apple’s de-
`cision not to pursue the other claims at trial did not mean
`that Apple could dismiss those claims. J.A. 25981. VirnetX
`informed the court that it would be “filing a JMOL on any
`theory that [Apple was] not going forward with.” J.A.
`25981–82. At the close of trial and after VirnetX formally
`submitted a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the
`court entered “judgment as a matter of law on theories of
`invalidity, other than anticipation over the Kiuchi refer-
`ences as to the asserted claims of the VirnetX patents.”
`J.A. 26113.
`The record just recited is one of actual litigation of the
`invalidity issues Apple now wants to raise. Apple contends
`otherwise, asserting that it did not “actually litigate” any
`invalidity challenge except anticipation by Kiuchi simply
`because it chose to present to the jury no evidence on any
`other invalidity issue. We disagree.
`A leading treatise states that, as a general rule, “pre-
`clusion applies to any issue framed by the pleadings and
`not withdrawn, even though it has not been raised at trial
`PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4419 (3d ed.) (Wright and Mil-
`ler). The Fifth Circuit has concluded that an issue is “ac-
`tually litigated” when the “issue is raised and the party
`who has the burden fails in his proof and the issue is de-
`cided against him.” Santopadre v. Pelican Homestead &


`Sav. Ass’n, 937 F.2d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing United
`States v. Silliman, 167 F.2d 607, 617 (3d Cir. 1948)). Here,
`in the 417 litigation, Apple asserted invalidity under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 from the outset, and the
`issues were extensively developed in discovery. Apple ex-
`pressly included a host of invalidity issues, as enumerated
`above, in the pretrial order, which “supersede[d] all prior
`pleadings” and governed the proceedings to come. Meaux
`Surface Protection, Inc. v. Fogleman, 607 F.3d 161, 167 (5th
`Cir. 2010); see In re Pirani, 824 F.3d 483, 493 n.1 (5th Cir.
`2016). That framing of the issues in the trial-governing
`pleadings, together with full pretrial engagement on the is-
`sues and the eventual judicial rulings resolving the issues
`based on evidentiary insufficiency, is enough to constitute
`actual litigation.
`Preclusion in this scenario serves important interests
`protected by preclusion principles. One is the judicial sys-
`tem’s interest in avoiding duplication caused by an earlier
`bypassing of a present and adequate opportunity for con-
`clusive resolution after fully prepared development of the
`issue. Another is the related reliance interest of the oppos-
`ing party: “once an issue has been framed, the opposing
`party has a right to rely on the expectation that it will be
`resolved conclusively in that action.” Wright and Mil-
`ler § 4419. When the adversarial litigation of the issue has
`proceeded as far as it did in the 417 matter, preclusion
`serves the interests in “conserving judicial resources” and
`“avoiding oppression or harassment of the adverse party.”
`Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 comment e.
`Here, VirnetX expended “considerable effort . . . in pre-
`paring to meet a case that [was] never made” when the
`time came for presentation of evidence. Wright and Miller
`§ 4419. VirnetX prevailed by summary judgment on two of
`the invalidity issues, including non-joinder. Then, only one
`week before trial, Apple informed the district court and
`VirnetX, in an “Emergency Motion to Dismiss,” that it


`would prefer not to pursue the remaining invalidity chal-
`lenges, but it proposed to dismiss them only if it could save
`them, unimpaired, for future litigation. J.A. 25487. In re-
`sponse, VirnetX explained to the court:
`VirnetX has spent well over a million dollars in this
`case defending the validity of the patents. There
`were more than 100 references asserted by Apple
`in this case in their invalidity contentions. We had
`to deal with all of those.
`We have had extensive motion practice in this
`Court on invalidity issues. We filed expert reports
`in this Court. We have taken depositions in this
`Court directed to invalidity.
`J.A. 25585–86. When the district court denied the motion
`to dismiss, Apple knew that the issues remained in the
`case. But Apple bypassed the opportunity to try the issues
`then and there, choosing to present no evidence on those
`issues. Judgment as a matter of law for failure of proof
`followed. Apple’s choice to present no evidence does not
`change the character of the judgment as a resolution of is-
`sues actually litigated.
`Apple relies for its contrary position on our decision in
`Voter Verified, but that decision did not hold that there is
`no actual litigation in a situation involving adversarial en-
`gagement on an issue as extensive in scope and duration,
`in a costly course of litigation, as the validity dispute in the
`417 matter. In Voter Verified, there had been an earlier
`case in which Voter Verified, Inc. sued Election Systems &
`Software LLC for patent infringement and Election Sys-
`tems counterclaimed that the asserted claims were invalid
`under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. 887 F.3d at 1379. But
`that was all Election Systems did in pressing the § 101
`counterclaim. Indeed, when Voter Verified moved for sum-
`mary judgment, “Election Systems failed to present any ar-
`guments or evidence regarding invalidity of these claims.”
`Id. In that circumstance, when Voter Verified sued


`Election Systems a second time, we applied Eleventh Cir-
`cuit preclusion law to reject issue preclusion of a § 101 chal-
`lenge. In addition to concluding that Voter Verified had
`not shown that the § 101 ruling in the first case was neces-
`sary to the judgment in that case, we concluded that inva-
`lidity under § 101 was not “actually litigated” in the first
`case because the “district court disposed of the § 101 issue
`when Election Systems chose not to respond.” Id. at 1383.
`Voter Verified thus involved such a “feeble effort” at
`presenting an issue that the case could be characterized as
`not involving actual litigation of the issue. Wright and Mil-
`ler § 4419 n.11; see id. (calling Voter Verified a “close call”).
`How much litigation is enough to constitute actual litiga-
`tion for preclusion purposes requires some judgment calls,
`but Voter Verified occupies a place on the spectrum far from
`a true adversarial contest and only a step away from bare
`pleading followed by consensual resolution, which is distin-
`guished from actual litigation. See Restatement (Second)
`of Judgments § 27 Comment e. In the circumstances of
`Voter Verified, moreover, preclusion was not meaningfully
`supported by the policies of protecting the judicial system
`and opposing parties that weigh so heavily here.
`Apple also contends that the district court in the 417
`litigation never actually entered judgment on the invalid-
`ity defenses that Apple did not present to the jury. We dis-
`agree. Apple relies on the fact that, after the verdict in the
`417 litigation, VirnetX moved for “judgment against Apple
`on Apple’s late-abandoned counterclaims and defenses, in-
`cluding all of Apple’s alleged prior art references,” 417 liti-
`gation, Dkt. 625, and the district court, in denying the
`motion, said:
`The Court cannot and will not enter judgment upon
`claims and defenses that were not presented for
`consideration to the jury. There is no basis to enter
`such a judgment, no more than there is a basis to


`enter judgment of non-infringement for Apple as to
`VirnetX’s unasserted claims.
`J.A. 22396. Apple effectively reads “defenses” as independ-
`ent from “claims” in relying on this passage to support its
`contention. We reject Apple’s argument.
`During the trial, as we have noted, the court had al-
`ready formally granted judgment on the invalidity defenses
`other than anticipation based on Kiuchi. See J.A. 25523
`(“Court granted” “Plaintiff’s JMOL on invalidity other than
`anticipation regarding Kiuchi”). The court did so after Vir-
`netX succeeded in persuading the district court not to per-
`mit Apple to dismiss its invalidity challenges voluntarily
`without prejudice, which would free Apple to reassert those
`challenges in future litigation. It is unreasonable to under-
`stand the district court as having suddenly reversed itself
`on those decisions. In any event, the mid-trial JMOL, to-
`gether with the pretrial partial summary judgment, stand
`as judgments on the challenges now at issue. The refusal
`to enter a further judgment does not undo those already-
`entered judgments.
`In context, the reference to “claims and defenses” must
`be understood as referring to the defenses Apple asserted
`against the patent claims that VirnetX ultimately excluded
`from its infringement assertions. Indeed, in responding to
`VirnetX’s motion, Apple noted that it was “not requesting
`to dismiss its invalidity claim in its entirety,” stating: “Ap-
`ple only seeks to dismiss those claims as to which VirnetX
`has not asserted infringement.” J.A. 25552 n.18. Moreo-
`ver, during the trial, after the district court had entered
`JMOL, Apple pointed out that VirnetX had initially “only
`asserted a subset of the claims,” had subsequently “limited
`those asserted claims to 18 claims,” and then had finally
`narrowed those claims even further at trial. J.A. 26122.
`The district court, in response, noted that it “ha[d] already
`granted [VirnetX’s] motion as to the asserted claims” but
`would “make note of [Apple’s] motion as to the unasserted


`claims and all of the patents” and would “take that under
`advisement.” J.A. 26122. The post-trial ruling that Apple
`now quotes is where the court addressed the unasserted
`For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
`determination that Apple is precluded from pressing the
`invalidity challenges it proposed to press in this case.
` We next address Apple’s appeal of the finding of in-
`fringement of the ’151 and ’135 patents based on the rede-
`signed VPN on Demand software in the mobile devices
`Apple sold. The jury found that Apple infringed the
`method claims of the ’135 patent and the computer reada-
`ble medium claim of the ’151 patent by developing, testing,
`and selling to its customers—with detailed instructions
`about how to perform the method—mobile devices with
`VPN on Demand installed. We reject Apple’s challenges,
`conclude that the jury had substantial evidence to support
`its verdict, and affirm the judgment of infringement.
`We affirm the judgment of infringement of the asserted
`claims of the ’135 patent.
`The record contains substantial evidence that the rede-
`signed version of VPN on Demand performs every step of
`the methods claimed in the asserted claims of the ’135 pa-
`tent. See J.A. 10079, 10114–21 (Apple’s guide for configur-
`ing VPN on Demand); J.A. 1328–52 (VirnetX’s expert
`testimony); J.A. 2343–47 (Apple’s expert testimony). Vir-
`netX used Apple’s configuration guide to show that the
`“EvaluateConnection” mode begins to operate when a user
`enters a domain name and, in response, the Apple device
`requests an IP address corresponding to that domain
`name. J.A. 10118–19; J.A. 1335. VPN on Demand “com-
`pares the requested domain against the domains listed in
`the Domains array,” thereby determining whether the


`request was for a secure website. J.A. 10118, 10120; see
`also J.A. 1335; J.A. 2345. If VPN on Demand finds that the
`requested domain is listed in the Domains array, it checks,
`by sending a request to a local DNS server, whether the
`user device is connected to the private network that hosts
`the requested website. J.A. 10121; J.A. 1335; J.A. 2344. If
`VPN on Demand determines that the user device is not con-
`nected to the private network, it automatically sets up a
`VPN between the user device and the website. J.A. 10121;
`J.A. 1335; J.A. 2344–45. Therefore, substantial evidence
`supports the

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

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.


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

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