When looking at this case further, the dispute revolves around violations with virtual private networks on Apple's FaceTime software. VirnetX argued that this proprietary technology, "VPN on Demand" was used in many of Apple's software applications according to Bloomberg Business. Interestingly, VirnetX has no products of their own and has failed to bring their products to the market. This patent case was instrumental in causing investors to regain confidence in the firm. In terms of the 4 specific patents involved, it included:
- 6,502,135 - Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability
- 7,418,504 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names
- 7,490,151 - Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request
- 7,921,211 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names
A CNN article explained further that VirnetX "owns about 80 patents, including the four that were the basis of the Apple suit". Furthermore the company has "14 employees and rents office space for $5,000 a month" (CNN). The only source of revenue includes patent licensing agreements and lawsuits such as these.Previous Case:
This case was thrown out in the past, as Apple "won on a technicality" due to the fact that "VirnetX failed to prove that consumers were buying iPads and other gadgets because of the software that violated VirnetX's patents" (CNN). It will be interesting to see whether this case will withstand the appeals process or if the trolls will prevail. Apple will have to be extra cautious going forward, as companies such as VirnetX seem to be cashing in on trolling opportunities.
Sources:
- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/virnetx-gets-625-6-million-in-patent-trial-against-apple
- http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/04/technology/apple-patent-lawsuit-virnetx/
- http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/03/apple-to-pay-virnetx-in-lawsuit/
- https://www.law360.com/articles/757160/apple-can-t-jump-into-virnetx-patent-reviews-ptab-told
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSiddharth,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your outlook on the case. I like how you cited your sources to add validation to your claims . Under the assumption that a firm has large amount of cash at hand, do you think businesses have an incentive to intentionally infringe on a patent, rather than paying them money for constant R&D?
Keep up the good work! I can tell you have put in a lot of effort and enjoy reading your posts.
An aesthetically pleasing post - nice use of pictures & citations. Did not know that VirnetX only employed 14 people paying $5,000 of office space per month; that's less than what my friends and I pay here in Berkeley!
ReplyDeleteHey Siddharth,
ReplyDeleteI like the thoroughness of your post. It had useful pictures, the video, and even citations. I'll take a look at the links -- they added some great perspective to the post. Looking forward to reading more.
Best,
Shauray
Hey Sid,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really detailed and well-explored analysis of the patent case at hand between Apple and Virnetx. You did a great job of explaining the details! Having the company structure also provides a good background into what the company does. Most of us have heard of Apple, if not all of us. I wish you explored some ethical issues as well.
The integration of the pictures and video for understanding is a wonderful idea. Maybe adding more spacing between paragraphs and sections could help!
ReplyDeleteGreat insight! I enjoyed the carefully planned out formatting and the integration of multiple media sources. It added to the coherency and impact of your analysis.
ReplyDelete