Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
Decision Date | 16 September 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 2013–1489.,2013–1489. |
Citation | 767 F.3d 1308,113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1112 |
Parties | VIRNETX, INC., Plaintiff–Appellee, and Science Applications International Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, and Apple Inc., Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Mark C. Fleming, Lauren B. Fletcher, and Rebecca Bact, of Boston, MA, and Jonathan G. Cedarbaum, Brittany Blueitt Amadi, and Leah Litman, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief was Danny L. Williams, Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C., of Houston, TX.
J. Michael Jakes, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief for Virnetx, Inc. were Kara F. Stoll and Srikala Atluri, of Washington, DC, and Benjamin R. Schlesinger, of Atlanta, GA. Of counsel on the brief were Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, and John Austin Curry, Caldwell, Cassady & Curry, of Dallas, TX. On the brief for Science Applications International Corporation were Donald Urrabazo, Arturo Padilla, and Ronald Wielkopolski, Urrabazo Law, P.C., of Los Angeles, CA; and Andy Tindel, Mann, Tindel & Thompson, of Tyler, TX.
Before PROST,* Chief Judge and CHEN, Circuit Judge.**
Apple Inc. appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in which a jury found that Apple infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (“'135 patent”), 7,418,504 (“'504 patent”), 7,490,151 (“'151 patent”), and 7,921,211 (“'211 patent”). The jury further found that none of the infringed claims were invalid and awarded damages to plaintiffs-appellees VirnetX, Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”) in the amount of $368,160,000.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the jury's findings that none of the asserted claims are invalid and that many of the asserted claims of the '135 and '151 patents are infringed by Apple's VPN On Demand product. We also affirm the district court's exclusion of evidence relating to the reexamination of the patents-in-suit. However, we reverse the jury's finding that the VPN On Demand product infringes claim 1 of the '151 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. We also reverse the district court's construction of the claim term “secure communication link” in the '504 and '211 patents and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the FaceTime feature infringes those patents under the correct claim construction. Finally, we vacate the jury's damages award and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The patents at issue claim technology for providing security over networks such as the Internet. The patents assert priority to applications filed in the 1990s, originally assigned to SAIC. VirnetX, a Nevada-based software development and licensing enterprise, acquired the patents from SAIC in 2006.
The '504 and '211 patents share a common specification disclosing a domain name service (“DNS”) system that resolves domain names and facilitates establishing “secure communication links.” '504 patent col. 55 ll. 49–50. In one embodiment, an application on the client computer sends a query including the domain name to a “secure domain name service,” which contains a database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. Id. at col. 50 ll. 54–57, col. 51 ll. 11–19, col. 51 ll. 29–32. This allows a user to establish a secure communication link between a client computer and a secure target network address. Id. at col. 51 ll. 34–40.
Representative claim 1 of the '504 patent recites:
Id. at col. 55 ll. 49–56.
Before the district court, VirnetX accused Apple of infringement based on its “FaceTime” feature. Specifically, VirnetX accused Apple's servers that run FaceTime on Apple's iPhone, iPod, iPad (collectively, “iOS devices”), and Mac computers of infringing claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 21, and 27 of the '504 patent as well as claims 36, 37, 47, and 51 of the '211 patent. In operation, FaceTime allows secure video calling between select Apple devices. J.A. 1443. To use FaceTime, a caller enters an intended recipient's e-mail address or telephone number into the caller's device (e.g., iPhone). J.A. 1451–52. An invitation is then sent to Apple's FaceTime server, which forwards the invitation to a network address translator (“NAT”) which, in turn, readdresses the invitation and sends it on to the receiving device. J.A. 1821, 1824–25. The recipient may then accept or decline the call. J.A. 1453. If accepted, FaceTime servers establish a secure FaceTime call. J.A. 1453. Once connected, the devices transmit audio/video data as packets across the secure communication path without passing through the FaceTime server. J.A. 1820, 1825.
A conventional DNS resolves domain names (e.g., “Yahoo.com”) into Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses. See '135 patent col. 37 ll. 22–27. A user's web browser then utilizes the IP address to request a website. Id. at col. 37 ll. 24–29.
The '135 and '151 patents share a common specification disclosing a system in which, instead of a conventional DNS receiving the request, a DNS proxy intercepts it and determines whether the request is for a secure site. Id. at col. 38 ll. 23–25. If the proxy determines that a request is for a secure site, the system automatically initiates a virtual private network (“VPN”) between the proxy and the secure site. Id. at col. 38 ll. 30–33. If the browser determines that the request was for a non-secure website, then the DNS proxy forwards the request to a conventional DNS for resolution. Id. at col. 38 ll. 43–47.
Representative claim 1 of the '135 patent recites:
Id. at col. 47 ll. 20–32.
Claims 1 and 13 of the '151 patent are similar to claim 1 of the '135 patent except that they recite initiating an “encrypted channel” and creating a “secure channel,” respectively, instead of creating a “VPN.” '151 patent col. 46 ll. 55–67, col. 48 ll. 18–29.
Before the district court, VirnetX accused Apple's iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch of infringing claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 of the '135 patent and claims 1 and 13 of the '151 patent because they include a feature called “VPN On Demand.” When a user enters a domain name into the browser of an iOS device, a DNS request is generated. J.A. 1393–94. VPN On Demand receives the request and checks a list of domain names for which a VPN connection should be established, known as a “configuration file.” J.A. 1377. If the entered domain name matches a domain name in the configuration file, VPN On Demand contacts a VPN server to authenticate the user and, if successful, automatically establishes a VPN between the user's browser and the target computer with which the requested domain name is associated. J.A. 1377–78, 1396–98.
On August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed this infringement action, alleging that Apple's FaceTime servers infringe certain claims of the '504 and '211 patents, and that Apple's VPN On Demand feature infringes certain claims of the '135 and '151 patents. Apple responded that FaceTime and VPN On Demand do not infringe, and that the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated by a 1996 publication by Takahiro Kiuchi et al. (“Kiuchi”).
On April 25, 2012, the district court construed disputed claim terms, and a jury trial commenced on October 31, 2012. After a five-day trial, the jury returned its verdict, finding all of the asserted claims valid and infringed. The jury awarded VirnetX $368,160,000 in reasonable royalty damages. Apple moved for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) or, alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur. On February 26, 2013, the district court denied Apple's motions. VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 925 F.Supp.2d 816 (E.D.Tex.2013).
Apple now appeals the denial of its post-trial motion for JMOL or a new trial. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
On appeal, Apple argues that the district court erred in construing the terms “domain name” and “secure communication link,” both recited in the '504 and ' 211 patents. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the construction of “domain name” and reverse the construction of “secure communication link.”
Claim construction is a question of law that we review de novo. Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 1272, 1276–77 (Fed.Cir.2014) (en banc); Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). The process of construing a claim term begins with the words of the claims themselves. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) ; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.
...121, 4 S.Ct. 291, 28 L.Ed. 371 ; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2011) 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 ; Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) 767 F.3d 1308, 1326.)Ajaxo argues that applying these patent principles was erroneous and inconsistent with the emphasis of trade......
-
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc.
...do more to estimate what portion of the value of that product is attributable to the patented technology." Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 767 F.3d 1308, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This Court has held, in a different case, that "the baseband processor"—the modem chip—"is the proper smallest......
-
Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
...the patented features and the vast number of non-patented features contained in the accused products." Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. , Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; see also Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC , 879 F.3d 1332, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (......
-
WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.
...feature creates the basis for customer demand or substantially creates the value of the component parts.”VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co., ......
-
Navigating Between The 'Hypothetical Negotiation' And Real World Facts In Proving Patent Damages
...the reality that it will typically involve approximation and uncertainty. Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1232, n.9; VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d 1308, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2014); LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 66. "Determining a fair and reasonable royalty is often . . . a difficult judicial chore, ......
-
A Primer On Patent Apportionment
...presented'using whatever methodology'is sufficiently reliable to support a damages award."52 Footnotes 2. VirnetX, v. Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotingLucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 3. Applied Research Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp......
-
When Is A RAND License Not Enough? Federal Circuit Vacates $10 Million Damages Award On Standard Essential Patents
...District Court's damages award for failure to apportion damages in view of its recent holding in VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014). (For a full discussion of this decision, see Arent Fox's recent alert on the VirnetX Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking Iss......
-
2015 Patent Damages Year In Review
...for activities that take place, in whole or in part, outside the United States. To read this Review in full, please click here. Footnotes 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 782 F. 3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 783 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......
-
PATENTLY RISKY: FRAMING, INNOVATION, AND ENTREPRENEURIAL PREFERENCES.
...the importance of international comity concerns when considering intellectual property rights). (133.) VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[W]hen claims are drawn to an individual component of a multi-component product, it is the exception, not the rule......
-
INJURY, INEQUALITY, AND REMEDIES: DEVELOPMENTS IN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES.
...profit from value and profit contributed by unpatented features of accused device(s)) (citing VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Gp., Ltd., 807 F.3d 1283, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reasoning that " [p]ast licensing p......
-
PUTTING THE EQUITY BACK INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REMEDIES.
...TECH. L.J. 1313, 1344-46, 1351 (2017). (79) See Laycock, supra note 26, at 1-2. (80) See, e.g., VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Thomas F. Cotter, John M. Golden, Oskar Liivak, Brian J. Love, Norman V. Siebrasse, Masabumi Suzuki & David O. Taylor,......