VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Patentability filed 11 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 20 Oct 2023, with US6502135B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6502135B1
- Application no.
- US09/504783
- Case no.
- 22-1523
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 11 Mar 2022 – 20 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 588 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability
- Validity challenges
- 10 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability
A plurality of computer nodes communicate using seemingly random Internet Protocol source and destination addresses. Data packets matching criteria defined by a moving window of valid addresses are accepted for further processing, while those that do not meet the criteria are quickly rejected. Improvements to the basic design include (1) a load balancer that distributes packets across different transmission paths according to transmission path quality; (2) a DNS proxy server that transparently creates a virtual private network in response to a domain name inquiry; (3) a large-to-small link bandwidth management feature that prevents denial-of-service attacks at system chokepoints; (4) a traffic limiter that regulates incoming packets by limiting the rate at which a transmitter can be synchronized with a receiver; and (5) a signaling synchronizer that allows a large number of nodes to communicate with a central node by partitioning the communication function between two separate entities.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 31 Dec 2002
- Earliest priority
- 29 Oct 1999
- Est. expiry
- 29 Oct 2019
- Validity challenges
- 10 on recordIPR2015-01046 · Other · filed by The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.IPR2016-00062 · Patentability · filed by VirnetX, Inc.IPR2013-00349 · Other · filed by Apple Inc.IPR2014-00171 · Other · filed by RPX Corporation95001679 · IPRex · filed by DAVID L. MCCOMBSIPR2014-00172 · filed by RPX CorporationIPR2015-01046 · filed by The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.95001269 · IPRex · filed by ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.IPR2016-00167 · Patentability · filed by VirnetX, Inc.95001682 · IPRex · filed by SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MUNGER, EDMUND COLBY · SCHMIDT, DOUGLAS CHARLES · SHORT, III, ROBERT DUNHAM · LARSON · WILLIAMSON
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04L12/56H04L29/12H04L45/24H04L45/243H04L45/28
- Prosecution counsel
- PAUL HASTINGS LLP
- Examiner
- LIM, KRISNA
Parties of record
VirnetX, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04L29/06H04L12/56H04L29/12H04L45/24
- Counsel
- Daniel Zeilberger · Igor Victor Timofeyev · Joseph Palys · Naveen Modi · Stephen Blake Kinnaird
- Firm
- Paul Hastings, LLP
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jeffrey Paul Kushan · Joshua John Fougere · Scott Border · Thomas Anthony Broughan III
- Firm
- Sidley Austin LLP, Winston Strawn LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Daniel Zeilberger | VirnetX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Igor Victor Timofeyev | VirnetX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Joseph Palys | VirnetX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Naveen Modi | VirnetX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Stephen Blake Kinnaird | VirnetX, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey Paul Kushan | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Joshua John Fougere | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Scott Border | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Thomas Anthony Broughan III | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1523 · Fed. Cir. · closed 20 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1523?
22-1523 is a patent patentability brought by VirnetX, Inc. against Apple, Inc., filed on 11 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 20 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1523?
US6502135B1 (“Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability”), assigned to VIRNETX INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability.
How was case 22-1523 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1523 take?
588 calendar days, from filing on 11 Mar 2022 to closure on 20 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1523?
Daniel Zeilberger, Igor Victor Timofeyev, Joseph Palys, Naveen Modi and Stephen Blake Kinnaird are recorded as counsel for plaintiff VirnetX. Jeffrey Paul Kushan, Joshua John Fougere, Scott Border and Thomas Anthony Broughan III appear for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1523 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.