VirnetX Holding Corp (VHC)

[nealhugh]

From analyst friend, again:

He says:
7/8/19 CAFC rules on VirnetX's appeal of the PTAB decision: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1368.Opinion.7-8-2019.pdf
" VirnetX argued we should wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether inter partes review is constitutional. That issue is now moot"
" (4) substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding of anticipation of claims 1–2, 6–8, and 12–14 of the ’151 based on Kiuchi; (5) the Board erred in construing claims 1, 3–4, 7–8, 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent; and (6) VirnetX’s constitutional challenge is moot. We vacate the Board’s decisions and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
11/22/19 CAFC rules on Apples appeal of the final judgement by jury. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1050.Opinion.11-22-2019.pdf

" We affirm the district court’s judgments that Apple is precluded from making certain invalidity arguments and that Apple infringed the ’135 and ’151 patents. We reverse the district court’s judgment that Apple infringed the ’504 and ’211 patents. We remand the case for proceedings on damages consistent with this opinion"
REMANDED FOR DAMAGES. NOT to rehear anything about the patent.

This judgement, further, they note:

"On November 6, 2012, a jury found that Apple had infringed all asserted claims. The jury also found that Apple had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the claims were anticipated by Kiuchi." Kiuchi is the reason the PTAB is finding the patents invalid. I don't see how the circuit court is going to care about the PTAB saying they are now invalid because of Kiuchi, when it's already been tried and ruled by a higher court.
7/14/20 PTAB on remand rules '151 and '135 are invalid (again): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2015-01046/112
citing the Kiuchi argument " ORDERED that claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12 of the ’135 patent are unpatentable"; a similar filing was made for the '151 patent.
I don't understand how the PTAB can do that, when the CAFC already said PTAB was wrong. More importantly, I don't see how the CAFC is going to care - this issue is moot.
I don't see how Arthrex plays out here, if at all. SCOTUS' ruling on Arthrex would either say the APJ's are or are not constitutional and thus would only help VHC if they were found unconstitutional (throwing out the PTAB's invalidations). Or, if found constitutional, it would be status quo for this 00855 case.
Apple is going to appeal, and they are going to cite the invalidation of the patents by the PTAB on remand.
In my opinion, the CAFC is going to say that these patent challenges have already been heard and settled by a jury, and then again addressed on appeal. And that the scope of the case is limited to DAMAGES at this point.
###
So what will the CAFC do? Send it back to TX again? ???