Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 9:23 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 7 mins.

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

VirnetX Holding Corp Message Board

  • seheggs seheggs Dec 19, 2011 3:22 PM Flag

    Patent denial was for "180" patent

    I thought the one in dispute with Apple was "181" and '135"

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • '135 and '180 are two of the five patents VHC initially filed for against AAPL.

      They're the same two they won with against MSFT, for $71.75m and $34m respectively.

      • 2 Replies to r.piggot
      • My mistake. Only CSCO was sued for infringement under the '180 patent. AAPL is being sued for infringement of '135 and '151.

        Is that right Flyers?

        ----

        WHEREFORE, VirnetX prays for the following relief:
        1. A judgment that Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and NEC have directly infringed the ’135
        patent, contributorily infringed the ’135 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’135
        patent;
        2. A judgment that Cisco has directly infringed the ’759 patent, contributorily
        infringed the ’759 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’759 patent;
        3. A judgment that Cisco has directly infringed the ’180 patent, contributorily
        infringed the ’180 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’180 patent;
        4. A judgment that Cisco and NEC have directly infringed the ’504 patent,
        contributorily infringed the ’504 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’504 patent;
        5. A judgment that Apple has directly infringed the ’151 patent, contributorily
        infringed the ’151 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’151 patent;
        6. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and
        NEC and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees,
        successors, and assigns, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from
        directly infringing, contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’135
        patent;
        7. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Cisco and its respective
        officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns,
        and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
        contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’759 patent;
        8. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Cisco and its respective
        officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns,
        and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
        contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’180 patent;
        9. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Cisco and NEC and their
        respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and
        assigns, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
        contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’504 patent;
        10. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Apple and its respective
        officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns,
        and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
        contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’151 patent;


        11. A judgment that Cisco’s infringement of the ’135, ’759, ’180 and ’504 patents
        has been willful;
        12. This case be found an exceptional case, entitling VirnetX to attorneys’ fees
        incurred in prosecuting this action;
        13. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VirnetX damages under 35
        U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up
        until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and treble damages for willful
        infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
        14. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VirnetX the costs of this
        action (including all disbursements);
        15. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VirnetX pre-judgment and
        post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;
        16. A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction
        preventing future acts of infringement is not granted, that VirnetX be awarded a compulsory
        ongoing licensing fee; and
        17. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

      • Gee, wonder why Piggot is reading the board today!!??!!

        Piggy's pain is just beginning. A little holiday present for the good guys.

    • '135 and '180 were the first 2. VHC just received the '181 grant in November and filed the SEC Complaint immediately following.

      The '180 denial sets a precedent because of the methodologies of VHC workflows versus all of the prior art submitted by Apple for review. Although there are never any guarantees, this first denial sets the stage based on those factors.

    • Apple filed reexams for the '135 and the '180.

      The '181 is a CIP of the '180 and is the one Apple is being investigated for by the ITC.

    • Correct '180.

      The '181 is made up of the '135 and '180 which were the two patents that Virnetx won against Microsoft with.

 
VHC
8.30+0.11(+1.33%)Sep 16 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.