Apple Won't Get Rehearing in VirnetX Patent Infringement Battle Dating Back to 2010, Court Rules - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Apple Won't Get Rehearing in VirnetX Patent Infringement Battle Dating Back to 2010, Court Rules

Apple will not be able to get a rehearing in its ongoing patent battle with VirnetX to argue that the patents it is accused of infringing are invalid, reports Bloomberg.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today rejected Apple's request to reconsider a November ruling that confirmed Apple infringed on two VirnetX patents.

virnetx apple
The patent dispute between VirnetX and Apple dates back to 2010 when VirnetX accused Apple's FaceTime feature of infringing on its intellectual property, and there are multiple lawsuits involved.

In this particular case, VirnetX was awarded $502.6 million in April 2018 after a court ruled that Apple's ‌FaceTime‌, iMessage, and VPN on Demand features infringed on four VirnetX patents related to communications security.

An appeals court later reexamined the ruling and determined that Apple had infringed on two VirnetX patents, but the other two counts were reversed in November 2019 and the $502.6 million award was vacated. The case was sent back to a lower court to determine whether revised damages can be calculated or if there will be a new damages trial, but the ruling was ultimately in favor of VirnetX.

At this time, with Apple's request for a rehearing on patent validity denied, Apple and VirnetX are awaiting details on the new damages Apple will be required to pay.

In a separate case, Apple was ordered to pay $440 million to VirnetX for similar patent infringement issues. Apple appealed that ruling multiple times as well, but an appeals court in January 2019 ruled in VirnetX's favor, leaving Apple responsible for a $440 million patent infringement fee.

Popular Stories

iphone duo facetime

iPhone Duo's Hidden FaceTime Camera Takes 'Trash' Photos

Wednesday October 21, 2026 11:36 am PDT by
The iPhone Duo's inner screen has an under-display front camera that's largely hidden from view. It's the first time we've seen an under-display camera on an iPhone, and it turns out there's a reason Apple hasn't used the technology before. Apple said the camera offers 1080p video recording, but didn't mention photo quality. Gizmodo said it's a 4-megapixel camera and described the photos as...
iphone duo facetime

Why Can't iPhone Duo Users Make Eye Contact on FaceTime?

Monday October 26, 2026 3:49 pm PDT by
FaceTime's Eye Contact setting is missing on the iPhone Duo, MacRumors can confirm. The setting was first flagged as absent by MacRumors forum member TwoBytes, who noticed their eyes looking "a little off" during a call. Introduced in iOS 14, Eye Contact uses machine learning to subtly adjust your eyes during a video call to make it seem like you're looking into the camera lens, even though ...
Taptic Engine iPhone 6s

Apple Could Owe Even More After $5.7 Billion Patent Verdict

Tuesday October 20, 2026 8:24 pm PDT by
Apple could face additional payments on top of a $5.7 billion patent verdict, with Taction Technology asking a federal judge for more damages, interest, and royalties on future iPhone and Apple Watch sales. The request follows a September jury verdict that Apple's Taptic Engine infringed two Taction patents covering haptic feedback, the technology that produces taps and vibrations in...

Top Rated Comments

oneMadRssn Avatar
88 months ago
I wish there was a way to get patents on obvious ideas invalidated.
There is. It's called Inter Partes Review ("IPR"). It's a process much cheaper than litigation that allows anyone to ask a special board at the USPTO to take a second look at a patent. Historically, that process has resulted in roughly 75% of patents they look at to be found invalid. Patent owners call them the patent death squad, while defendants usually hail them as cleaning up the system.

Apple tried to IPR these patents and did not succeed. If the patent death squad didn't rule them to be obvious, that should tell you how non-obvious they are.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)
88 months ago

This is how a rotten patent system works: patent trolls will win every single time.
"every single time" seems like an exaggeration to me. And like I've told my kids a million times, never exaggerate.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
88 months ago

Is it guaranteed that they're a patent troll?
Ruling not in Apple's favor? Patent troll.

That's how it works around here.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ruslan120 Avatar
88 months ago
Is it guaranteed that they're a patent troll? Inventing new IP and then selling it off or licensing is a valid form of business, especially for colleges and universities.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
I7guy Avatar
88 months ago
Pay up and let’s get on with life.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
88 months ago

There is. It's called Inter Partes Review ("IPR"). It's a process much cheaper than litigation that allows anyone to ask a special board at the USPTO to take a second look at a patent. Historically, that process has resulted in roughly 75% of patents they look at to be found invalid. Patent owners call them the patent death squad, while defendants usually hail them as cleaning up the system.

Apple tried to IPR these patents and did not succeed. If the patent death squad didn't rule them to be obvious, that should tell you how non-obvious they are.
The PTAB did rule that the patents at issue (i.e. relevant claims of those patents) were invalid. It did so not based on them being obvious, but based on them being anticipated by prior art (i.e. Takahiro Kiuchi - The Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-Based Network on the Internet (1996)).

There were 4 patents which Apple was, in this case, found to have infringed - '211, '504, '135, and '151. The PTAB instituted an IPR against each of those patents. That means that the Board found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners (Black Swamp for '211 and '504, Mangrove Partners for '135 and '151) would be able to demonstrate invalidity for some of the claims at issue.

The Federal Circuit found that Apple hadn't infringed '211 and '504 - i.e., it found that Apple was entitled to JMOL on the infringement issue because no reasonable jury could, using proper claim constructions, find that Apple infringed the asserted claims of those patents. But, for the record, the PTAB found many claims of those patents invalid as anticipated by Kiuchi.

Regarding '135 and '151, the PTAB also found that the asserted claims from those patents (2 from '135 and 1 from '151) - as well as most of the other claims of those patents - were invalid as anticipated by Kiuchi. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded those decisions for a number of reasons that I won't get lost in.

However, among other issues, the Federal Circuit left it for the PTAB to consider the obviousness issue with regard to both patents. The PTAB hadn't previously needed to decide on obviousness because it had found anticipation. The Federal Circuit also left it for the PTAB to reconsider the anticipation issue with regard to '135. The PTAB heard arguments in these matters a few weeks ago.

So we don't know whether the claims at issue will ultimately be found, through IPR, to be invalid. But the point is that there's at least some reasonable arguments to be made that they are invalid.

To be clear, that most likely (barring an unlikely review by the Supreme Court) won't help Apple when it comes to the case which is the subject of this thread. Apple hasn't been allowed to make the invalidity arguments that it wanted to because of previous litigation, involving the same patents, between the parties. So even if VirnetX's asserted claims (from '135 and '151) are ultimately invalidated through the IPR process, Apple will likely have to pay damages based on having infringed them. What's left now is to determine how much Apple will have to pay.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Latest Stories
Samsung Mocks iPhone Duo Display Cracks in New Ad Campaign
Samsung Mocks iPhone Duo Display Cracks in New Ad Campaign
42 minutes ago
The MacRumors Show: OLED MacBook Pro, iPad Mini 8, and More
The MacRumors Show: OLED MacBook Pro, iPad Mini 8, and More
1 hour ago
MacBook Pro With Touch Display: 15 More Details Revealed
MacBook Pro With Touch Display: 15 More Details Revealed
1 hour ago
Russia Places Apple on State Surveillance Registry
Russia Places Apple on State Surveillance Registry
3 hours ago
Halloween Weekend Brings Discounts on Apple Accessories and Pre-Orders
Halloween Weekend Brings Discounts on Apple Accessories and Pre-Orders
4 hours ago
Apple Has Released More Than 25 New Products in the Past Two Months
Apple Has Released More Than 25 New Products in the Past Two Months
4 hours ago
Local Code Launches as Free, Private AI Assistant Tool for Mac
Local Code Launches as Free, Private AI Assistant Tool for Mac
4 hours ago
Apple Acquires Ascend.io
Apple Acquires Ascend.io
5 hours ago
HomePod Mini 2 Launches Today: All the New Features
HomePod Mini 2 Launches Today: All the New Features
5 hours ago
AirTag 2 4-Pack Drops to New Low Price of $69.99
AirTag 2 4-Pack Drops to New Low Price of $69.99
5 hours ago
Rian Johnson's iPhone Camera App Goes Viral
Rian Johnson's iPhone Camera App Goes Viral
6 hours ago
Where Did All the iPhone Duos Go? Mostly to Apple's Stores
Where Did All the iPhone Duos Go? Mostly to Apple's Stores
8 hours ago
Apple's Touchscreen MacBook Pro Could Ship 1.5M Units in 2027
Apple's Touchscreen MacBook Pro Could Ship 1.5M Units in 2027
9 hours ago
New Apple TV 4K and iPad Mini: RAM Amounts Revealed
New Apple TV 4K and iPad Mini: RAM Amounts Revealed
17 hours ago
Apple Executive Comments on New iPad Mini Lacking 120Hz Display
Apple Executive Comments on New iPad Mini Lacking 120Hz Display
21 hours ago
Here's a Hands-On Look at HomePod Mini 2's New Two-Tone Colors
Here's a Hands-On Look at HomePod Mini 2's New Two-Tone Colors
22 hours ago
Apple Lowers App Store Fees in Taiwan Starting October 31
Apple Lowers App Store Fees in Taiwan Starting October 31
23 hours ago
HomeView Pre-Order Returns to $289.99 on Amazon
HomeView Pre-Order Returns to $289.99 on Amazon
23 hours ago
Apple Avoids Showing Pinched Fingers on iPad Mini Page in South Korea
Apple Avoids Showing Pinched Fingers on iPad Mini Page in South Korea
23 hours ago
Old 'Popcorn Time' App Left Hundreds of Thousands of Macs at Risk
Old 'Popcorn Time' App Left Hundreds of Thousands of Macs at Risk
1 day ago
You Can Turn Off the New MacBook Pro's Touchscreen Functionality
You Can Turn Off the New MacBook Pro's Touchscreen Functionality
1 day ago
MacBook Pro Mini-LED vs. OLED Buyer's Guide: Every Difference
MacBook Pro Mini-LED vs. OLED Buyer's Guide: Every Difference
1 day ago
Where to Pre-Order Apple's New MacBooks, iPad Mini, and iMac
Where to Pre-Order Apple's New MacBooks, iPad Mini, and iMac
1 day ago
Apple Releasing HomePod Mini 2 Tomorrow With These New Features
Apple Releasing HomePod Mini 2 Tomorrow With These New Features
1 day ago
How macOS Adapts Its Controls for Touch on the New MacBook Pro
How macOS Adapts Its Controls for Touch on the New MacBook Pro
1 day ago
Just Got an iPhone Duo? Try These Features First
Just Got an iPhone Duo? Try These Features First
1 day ago
Apple Announced Scott Forstall's Departure 14 Years Ago Today
Apple Announced Scott Forstall's Departure 14 Years Ago Today
1 day ago
Best Buy Opens Pre-Orders for PROLED XDR MacBook Pro With $100 Bonus Gift Cards
Best Buy Opens Pre-Orders for PROLED XDR MacBook Pro With $100 Bonus Gift Cards
2 days ago
Here's Everything Apple Announced This Week
Here's Everything Apple Announced This Week
2 days ago
Here's a Real-World Look at the New MacBook Pro's Glowing Apple Logo
Here's a Real-World Look at the New MacBook Pro's Glowing Apple Logo
2 days ago

🔗 Related Apple News & Rumors

Stay updated with the latest Apple ecosystem news and verified rumors