Case Name: VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. APPLE INC., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-09
Citations: 671 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: 2016-1211; 2016-1213; 2016-1279; 2016-1281
Parties: VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. APPLE INC., Appellee
Judges: Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
VIRNETX INC., Appellant v. APPLE INC., Appellee
2016-1211
2016-1213
2016-1279
2016-1281
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Decided: December 9, 2016
Joseph Palys, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Naveen Modi, Danielle Ruth Acker Susanj, Igor Victor Ti-mofeyev, Daniel Zeilberger.
John C. O’Quinn, Kirkland <& Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Nathan S. Mammen; Jeffrey Paul Kushan, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC.
Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
O'Malley, Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns the validity of Vir-netX Inc.'s ("VirnetX") U.S. Patent Nos. 7,188,180 ("the 180 patent") and 7,987,274 ("the '274 patent"), disclosing technology for establishing secure communication over networks. Apple Inc. ("Apple") challenged claims of the '274 patent in two inter partes review proceedings, which were consolidated with IPR2014-00403 ("the 403 proceeding") and IPR2014-00404 ("the 404 proceeding") initiated by Microsoft Corporation on similar grounds. Apple relied principally on U.S. Patent No. 6,557,087 to Provino ("Provino") and Tak-ahiro Kiuchi & Shigekoto Kaihara, C-HTTP—The Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the Internet (Feb. 1996) ("Kiuchi"), respectively, for each proceeding. Apple also challenged claims of the '180 patent in two inter partes review proceedings, IPR2014-00481 ("the 481 proceeding") and IPR2014-00482 ("the 482 proceeding"), again relying principally on Provino and Kiuchi, respectively. VirnetX now appeals to this court.
After full review of the record and careful consideration, we find no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("the Board") claim constructions or findings in the 403 and 481 proceedings. For the reasons given by the Board therein, we find the challenged claims unpatentable over Provino and the additional prior art cited. We do not, therefore, need to reach the merits of the Board's decisions in the 404 and 482 proceedings.
AFFIRMED