InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

Below is CAFC's introductory summary to the VHC v APPL/CSCO decision. As described, CAFC affirmed that the patents were valid and that there was infringement of many of the asserted patent claims. However, because of revised claim construction, they reversed the infringement findings related to other claims, and reversed the damages award.

"For the reasons that follow, we affirm the jury’s findings
that none of the asserted claims are invalid and that
many of the asserted claims of the ’135 and ’151 patents
are infringed by Apple’s VPN On Demand product. We
also affirm the district court’s exclusion of evidence relating
to the reexamination of the patents-in-suit. However,
we reverse the jury’s finding that the VPN On Demand
product infringes claim 1 of the ’151 patent under the
doctrine of equivalents. We also reverse the district
court’s construction of the claim term “secure communication
link” in the ’504 and ’211 patents and remand for
further proceedings to determine whether the FaceTime
feature infringes those patents under the correct claim
construction. Finally, we vacate the jury’s damages
award and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion."



IMO the main problem was their reversal of the damage award. This is the area that could affect IDCC. CAFC stated:

"We conclude that the district court’s jury instruction
regarding the entire market value rule was legally erroneous.
Moreover, that error cannot be considered harmless,
as VirnetX’s expert relied on the entire value of the
iOS devices as the “smallest salable units,” without attempting
to apportion the value attributable to the VPN
On Demand and FaceTime features. Thus, it is clear that
the jury’s verdict was tainted by the erroneous jury instruction."