High Court Rejects Case Over Apple’s Role in Patent Challenge

The US Supreme Court declined to take up a legal challenge that could have revived a $503 million jury verdict against Apple Inc.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in March 2023 ruled that a pair of VirnetX Inc. patents were invalid because they were anticipated by a 1996 network security article. VirnetX had previously won an East Texas jury verdict for Apple’s alleged infringement of the patents through its FaceTime and VPN on Demand products.

VirnetX argued in its petition for high court review that Apple shouldn’t have been allowed to join the administrative proceedings targeting its patents initiated by Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ultimately canceled its patents. The patent owner separately argued that the denial of its request for a rehearing was erroneous, as it was issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office’s former Commissioner of Patents, rather than a Senate-confirmed official or a temporary placeholder for the agency’s director as authorized by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Apple and the PTO urged the high court not to upset the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

Paul Hastings LLP and Caldwell Cassady & Curry represent VirnetX. Apple is represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. The Law Office of James T. Bailey represents Mangrove. Martin & Ferraro LLP represents Black Swamp.

The case is VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd., U.S., 23-315, cert. denied 2/20/24.