SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksVHC - VIRNETX - Mobile internet security - Hottest technol


Previous 10 
To: sixty2nds who wrote (33)3/8/2019 6:26:55 PM
From: Solarity
1 Recommendation   of 36
 
A recent Dallas Morning News editorial blamed so-called patent trolls for Apple closing two stores in Plano and Frisco. My law firm represents several of the businesses described as "opportunistic companies" that "exploit the courts and our patent law." In fact, Apple is the opportunistic company.

Apple has lost multiple trials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, including some cases won by my law firm, Caldwell Cassady & Curry. Our verdicts against Apple include $533 million (2015), $625 million (2016), $302 million (2016), $22 million (2016) and $502 million (2018).

In three of these trials, we represented Nevada-based VirnetX Inc. in cases involving the technology that enables the popular FaceTime feature to work on Apple's iPhones and other company products. VirtnetX, a publicly traded company, owns a valuable patent portfolio that covers secure communications technology, and its patented ideas originated with a group of inventors from Science Applications International Corp., the respected defense contractor and technology supplier.

One of the main inventors of VirnetX's patented technology is a former chief system architect and assistant vice president at SAIC. Another holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and previously worked as assistant vice president and division manager at SAIC.

The reason Apple was sued is because the company has never licensed VirnetX's technology. Instead, Apple has used its vast resources to drag VirnetX through trial after trial and appeal after appeal. Despite having had multiple opportunities, Apple has never won at trial against VirnetX because it has never been able to muster a defense that jurors found credible.

In 2013, Apple modified FaceTime to avoid infringing VirnetX's patents. This redesign was so expensive that it was abandoned after only three months, and Apple again modified FaceTime to resume infringing VirnetX's patents. Meanwhile, Apple misrepresented this fact in litigation and claimed that it was continuing to use its expensive redesign. After the truth was uncovered, a Federal District Court judge found that Apple had tried to conceal its infringement. But to this day — after nearly a decade in court — Apple has never paid VirnetX one penny for using its technology.

Who is really the "opportunistic company" here? Apple has made more than a trillion dollars selling products that rely on VirnetX's technology. Even if it did not originally intend to infringe VirnetX's patents, Apple certainly made a cold calculation to resume its infringement after its redesign failed —knowing that it would take VirnetX years to get any relief in court.

And who is really "exploiting" the courts? For one, it's entirely prudent to file cases in a proper legal venue such as the Eastern District, where the judges are very experienced in patent law and adept at identifying and managing any cases that are not brought with good reason. It's also important to note that, at any point in time, Apple could have decided to take responsibility and license VirnetX's technology on fair terms. Instead, it has engaged in litigation misconduct while trying to string out the proceedings to avoid paying anything.

If Apple officials want to move out of Frisco, that is their prerogative. But let's not pretend that Apple is a victim.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Solarity who wrote (34)3/8/2019 6:28:20 PM
From: Solarity
1 Recommendation   of 36
 
For Apple, a settlement enables negotiation, while it still has some semblance of leverage, of a one time payment granting a worldwide, pre-paid license to VHC's patents booked as an extraordinary item.

If Apple chooses not to settle, it will pay (via Apple 4) a court mandated $1.20 per unit ongoing cash payment on US iPhone revenues; that will fall to the COGS line, and a reduction in gross margin will have a much, much greater impact on Apple's market cap than a discounted aggregation of that payment stream booked as a one time extraordinary item.

If Apple chooses not to settle, the company will certainly use Apple's initial Apple 3 payment to fund litigation against Apple in Europe (Germany), Japan, etc. for patent infringement. Some of those markets issue injunctions first and ask questions later.

If Apple, per your suggestion, waits until Apple 4 is Rule 36'd to phone Zephyr Cove, VirnetX has every incentive to flash the big middle finger and take the actions above. Apple has more leverage today than it will after Apple 3 is denied en banc, when it will have more leverage than it will after Apple 4 is heard, when it will have more leverage than it will when writ is denied or Apple 4 is Rule 36d (which ever comes first), etc. You may think the IPR's remain a factor, for all the reasons discussed ad nauseum on this board over the last couple of weeks, I don't, and I doubt that Apple does either.

As for other infringers, if they don't settle on reasonable terms, VHC will sue for willful infringement. Validity will be established, infringement will be obvious, and damages will certainly include a step up for willfulness.

The infringers, including Apple, played a much longer game than they could have wished for initially. They lost. It's over. Time to pay up.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Solarity who wrote (35)6/6/2019 8:55:42 PM
From: Solarity
1 Recommendation   of 36
 
Do you want to make some money? VHC is the stock to load up on. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is going to issue an opinion any day now that validates their patents and sends this innovative company to the moon. Mark my word.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10