Litigation | Note 7 — Litigation We have multiple intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (“USDC”), and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“USCAFC”). VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) (“Apple I”) On August 11, 2010, we filed a complaint against Aastra USA. Inc. (“Aastra”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and NEC Corporation (“NEC”) in the USDC in which we alleged that these parties infringe on certain of our patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The cases against each defendant were separated by the judge. Aastra and NEC agreed to sign license agreements with us and we dropped all accusations of infringement against them. A jury in USDC decided that our patents were not invalid and rendered a verdict of non-infringement by Cisco on March 4, 2013. Our motion for a new Cisco trial was denied and the case against Cisco was closed. On November 6, 2012, a jury in the USDC awarded us over $368,000 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents, plus daily interest up to the final judgment. Apple filed an appeal of the judgment to the USCAFC. On September 16, 2014, USCAFC affirmed the USDC jury’s finding that all four of our patents at issue are valid and confirmed the USDC jury’s finding of infringement of VPN on Demand under many of the asserted claims of our ‘135 and ‘151 patents, and the USDC’s decision to allow evidence about our license and royalty rates regarding the determination of damages. However, the USCAFC vacated the USDC jury’s damages award and some of the USDC’s claim construction with respect to parts of our ‘504 and ‘211 patents and remanded the damages award and determination of infringement with respect to FaceTime back to the USDC for further proceedings. On September 30, 2016, pursuant to the 2014 remand from the USCAFC, a jury in the USDC, awarded us $302,400 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents. On September 29, 2017, the USDC entered its final judgement, denied all of Apple’s post-trial motions, granted all our post-trial motions, including our motion for willful infringement and enhanced the royalty rate during the willfulness period from $1.20 to $1.80 per device, and awarded us costs, certain attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest. The total amount in the final judgement was $439,700, including $302,400 (jury verdict), $41,300 (enhanced damages) and $96,000 (costs, fees and interest). On October 27, 2017 Apple filed its notice of appeal of this final judgement to the USCAFC. Apple filed its opening brief on March 19, 2018. We filed our response on April 4, 2018. On April 11, 2018, USCAFC designated Cases 18-1197-CB, Case 17-1368 and Case 17-1591 VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) (“Consolidated Appeal”) VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) (“Apple II”) On April 12, 2018, an USDC jury awarded us $502,600 in this case. The same jury in the second part of the case determined that Apple had willfully infringed all the patents in the case, which per the jury instructions is reserved for only the most egregious behavior, such as where the infringement is malicious, deliberate, consciously wrongful, or done in bad faith. The verdict covers issues of infringement by products that were allegedly changed after the Apple I trial including, Apple’s redesigned VOD (VPN on Demand) in iOS 7 to iOS 11, the redesigned FaceTime in iOS 7 to iOS 11 and OS X 10.9 and later. This case began on November 6, 2012, when we had filed a complaint against Apple in USDC in which we alleged that Apple infringed on certain of our patents, (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4 th VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) (“Consolidated Appeal”) On April 11, 2018, the USCAFC in an order designated following appeals · VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) On December 16, 2016, we filed appeals with the USCAFC, appealing the invalidity findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in IPR2015-01046, and on December 20, 2016 for IPR2015-1047, involving our U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, and 7,490,151. These appeals also involve Apple, Inc. and one of them involves Black Swamp IP, LLC. These appeals have been consolidated into a single case. · VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1197-CB) (Appeal of Apple I Case) On October 27, 2017 Apple filed its notice of appeal of the Final Judgment entered on September 29, 2017 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. · VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 17-1591) On February 7, 2017, we filed appeals with the USCAFC, appealing the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-parties’ reexamination nos. 95/001,788, 95/001,789, and 95/001,856 related to our U.S. Patent Nos. 7,921,211 and 7,418,504 . The written briefing in all these USCAFC cases have been concluded; the oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Case 17-2490) On August 23, 2017, we filed with the USCAFC appeals of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in IPR2016-00331 and IPR2016-00332 involving our U.S. Patent No. 8,504,696. The briefing in these appeals has been concluded; the oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. VirnetX Inc. (Case 17-2593) On September 22, 2017, we filed with the USCAFC, appeals of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in IPR2016-00693 and IPR2016-00957 involving our U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211. The briefing in these appeals has not taken place. The entity that initiated the IPRs, Black Swamp IP, LLC, indicated on October 18, 2017, that it would not participate in the appeals. On November 27, 2017, the USPTO indicated that it would intervene in the appeals. On January 19, 2018, the USCAFC stayed these appeals pending the USCAFC’s decision in Case 17-1591. One or more potential intellectual property infringement claims may also be available to us against certain other companies who have the resources to defend against any such claims. Although we believe these potential claims are likely valid, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we could prevail on such potential claims if we made them. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may distract our management and our other resources, including capital resources, from efforts to successfully commercialize our products. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us. |