VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE, INC. , No. 16-1480 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. ______________________ 2 VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE, INC. Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.