VirnetX Holding Corp (VHC)

[PatentPlays]

Latest US CCourt of Appeals decision that could effect Virnetx receiving a higher damage award.

Collateral Estoppel Decision

Importance to VHC:

"1) Argument over collateral estoppel. Newman in dissent trying to school Chen and Dyk on their sui sponte decision to grant estoppel on one patent, regardless of the parties to the district court proceeding and the IPR being not the same. Good example on why a PTAB invalidation of a patent (even when affirmed by the CAFC) doesn't (or shouldn't) automatically apply collateral estoppel.

2) Discussion over damages SUBSEQUENT to a finding of infringement. This is important because it highlights the fact that AFTER an Apple3 royalty rate has been established to be fair....subsequent damages should necessarily be higher to take into account the changed circumstances.....this leads to a logical conclusion that having been found guilty of infringement in Apple 3....the rate (as well as any willful infringement enhancement) should be HIGHER in Apple 4. Should help Schroeder in explaining/issuing his judgment."