Replies

The CAFC threw out the amount solely because they created in that order a new way to calculate damages. The case was remanded for a new trial on the level of damages and whether Facetime also was infringing. Apple was held to be infringing on VHC’s patent on VPN on demand. Apple is a thief, but it will eventually have to pay up. Apple will drag out these proceeding for years in hopes that whoever they are stealing intellectual property from will go bankrupt before they have to pay. By the way, many people believe the new jury award will be higher than the original $368 million because VHC’s patents have be found not to be invalid, Apple is willfully infringing and the attempt by Apple to do a workaround cost them more than $20 million per month and provided degraded service.

I really doubt your claim that the trial court will INCREASE any award considering the basis of the Appeals Court specified that the reversed errors had to do with the instructions on how to calculate the award, which the jury award based on the total price of the devices in suit:

"The law requires patentees to apportion the royalty down to a reasonable estimate of the value of its claimed technology, or else establish that its patented technology drove demand for the entire product," Chief Judge Sharon Prost wrote for a two-judge panel. A third judge resigned before the decision was issued.

It would be extremely difficult for VirtnetX to claim that Macs, iPod touch, iPads, and iPhones are purchased based only on the fact they have FaceTime capability. . . and not for any other reason. That is the bar they Appellate court set to even keep the amount where it was set because the jury was incorrectly instructed.

Your claim of "willfully" infringing is specious as that was not found in trial. willful is a legal term and requires a determination by the jury, not you. We are not noting any "degraded service" that you claim.

You are free to doubt away, but you are badly misinformed about the case. First, there is no degradation of service at present because Apple gave up on trying to work around either VPN on Demand or FaceTime. However, for the short period when a “workaround” using relay servers was in place, over 50,000 consumer complaints were filed with Apple, so they went back to infringing. Second, while I agree that the term “willful” has not been determined by Judge or jury to date, Apple continues to use technology that they have no license to use. Judge Davis’ penalty on the RRR was, in effect, a determination that Apple was willfully violating VHC patents. You seem to think that the security VHC provides Apple products is inconsequential, but in fact it is the centerpiece of Apple’s Ios system. VHC will introduce at trial that Apple said in the original trial that a workaround would take “about a month” and cost “less than 5 million”, when in fact there is still no workaround and an attempt to do so cost $20 million a month and provided poor quality service. Apple is screwed. Patents not invalid and Apple has been infringing them for almost 10 years. Even if the RRR is reduced, the total dollar amount for prior damages will be huge, and as by then VHC will have an available App for sale that will provide this security to others, the jury will have a cost it can use to peg damages to, which I am certain will be at least as large as originally determined.

"It would be extremely difficult for VirtnetX to claim that Macs, iPod touch, iPads, and iPhones are purchased based only on the fact they have FaceTime capability. . . and not for any other reason.

That is the bar they Appellate court set to even keep the amount where it was set because the jury was incorrectly instructed."

I hate FaceTime. I would never buy the iPhone or iPad because of FaceTime capability.

Never use it, ever.