Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Virnetx Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1480 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2016)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1480
Decided
December 9, 2016
Judge
O'Malley, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

VIRNETX INC.,

Appellant

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Appellee

2016-1480

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,949.

Decided: December 9, 2016

IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS, DANIELLE RUTH ACKER SUSANJ, DANIEL ZEILBERGER.

JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NATHAN S. MAMMEN; JEFFREY PAUL KUSHAN, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC.

22 VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE, INC.

Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

This appeal concerns the validity of VirnetX Inc.’s (“VirnetX”) U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (“the ’181 patent”), disclosing technology for establishing secure communication over networks. Apple Inc. (“Apple”) challenged all claims of the ’181 patent in a request for inter partes reexamination, Control No. 95/001,949. The Patent and Trademark Office granted reexamination and rejected all 29 claims as unpatentable. On appeal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirmed. Specifically, the Board’s final decision found claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 17– 29 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser (“Beser”), claims 1, 2, 7–9, 12–17, 19–21, and 24–29 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 to Mattaway (“Mattaway”), and claims 1–15, 18–23, and 28–29 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino (“Provino”). VirnetX now appeals to this court.

After full review of the record and careful consideration, we find no error in the Board’s claim constructions or findings with respect to the Mattaway and Provino references, which together cover all claims of the ’181 patent. We do not, therefore, need to reach the merits of the Board’s decision with respect to Beser.

AFFIRMED

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Virnetx Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1480 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2016).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1480-20161209
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1480-20161209

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.