High Stakes Race Between Apple and VirnetX: Will PTAB Trump The Texas Jury's Award of $326.5M?

04 February 2016 PTAB Trial Insights Blog

A Texas jury today raised the stakes even higher in a race involving parallel proceedings between the PTAB and Texas district court when it found that Apple infringed the VirnetX patents and awarded to VirnetX $625.6M in damages. While the Texas jury found the patents to be valid and infringed in today’s verdict, the PTAB earlier instituted IPRs on October of 2015 against the patents-in-suit. In the event that the PTAB finds the claims unpatentable before a final judgment is entered in the district court proceedings, then the entire damages award could be trumped by the PTAB’s decision, assuming the holding in the Federal Circuit’s Fresenius v. Baxter decision is followed. However, the Federal Circuit was sharply divided in its Fresenius decision and further declined to reconsider the holding en banc in a divided opinion, raising questions about whether a differently composed panel will reach the same outcome.

Given the PTAB’s institution date, a final written decision in the IPRs is not expected until October of 2016. A key question will be whether the Texas litigation will reach a final decision before the PTAB renders its final written decision. Given the potential for an appeal of the decision in the Texas litigation, it is possible that the PTAB’s final written decision will reach the Federal Circuit and be decided before a final judgment is entered following a presumed appeal of the district court litigation.

Apple had initially attempted to file IPRs on its own, but they were denied as time-barred in view of the litigation. However, when a hedge fund filed a new set of IPRs that were instituted, Apple was able to successfully join into them and sidestep the time bar using a motion for joinder. The Jan. 25th decision of the PTAB instituted IPR and concurrently granted Apple’s motion for joinder. Being joined as a party in the IPR will allow Apple to participate to a certain extent and engage in any settlement discussions. In particular, the decision on joinder states that:

FURTHER ORDERED that any separate filing by Apple, Inc. in
IPR2015-01046 must not exceed five pages, without prior authorization of
the Board;
FURTHER ORDERED that Apple, Inc. is bound by any discovery
agreements between Patent Owner and the other petitioner in IPR2015-
01046 and that Apple, Inc. shall not seek any discovery beyond that sought
by the other petitioner in IPR2015-01046;
FURTHER ORDERED that all petitioners in IPR2015-01046 shall
collectively designate attorneys to conduct the cross-examination of any
witness produced by Patent Owner and the redirect examination of any other
witness; within the timeframes set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) or agreed to
by the parties;
FURTHER ORDERED that all petitioners in IPR2015-01046 shall
collectively designate attorneys to present at the oral hearing, if requested
and scheduled, in a consolidated argument.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services