Court Opinion

ID: 9383867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:00:55.365803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.742011
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1672    Document: 75     Page: 1   Filed: 03/31/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

    VIRNETX INC., LEIDOS, INC., FKA SCIENCE
        APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
               CORPORATION,
               Plaintiffs-Appellees

                             v.

                      APPLE INC.,
                   Defendant-Appellant
                  ______________________

                        2021-1672
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:12-cv-00855-RWS, Judge
 Robert Schroeder, III.
                   ______________________

                 Decided: March 31, 2023
                 ______________________

     JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appellees. Plaintiff-appellee
 VirnetX Inc. also represented by RAYINER HASHEM, LUCAS
 M. WALKER; BRADLEY WAYNE CALDWELL, JASON DODD
 CASSADY, JOHN AUSTIN CURRY, Caldwell Cassady & Curry,
 Dallas, TX.

    DONALD SANTOS URRABAZO, Urrabazo Law, P.C., Los
Case: 21-1672     Document: 75     Page: 2    Filed: 03/31/2023

 2                                  VIRNETX INC.   v. APPLE INC.

 Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee Leidos, Inc. Also repre-
 sented by ANDY TINDEL, Mann, Tindel & Thompson, Tyler,
 TX.

     WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
 Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant.
 Also represented by MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, LAUREN
 B. FLETCHER; BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, STEVEN JARED
 HORN, Washington, DC; THOMAS GREGORY SPRANKLING,
 Palo Alto, CA.
                  ______________________

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and STARK, Circuit
                           Judges.
 STARK, Circuit Judge.
     We previously affirmed that Apple’s VPN On Demand
 feature infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 and
 7,490,151. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 792 F. App’x 796, 813
 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We remanded for further proceedings on
 damages. Id. Apple appealed the resulting damages
 award.
     In the meantime, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
 found both patents unpatentable. We have now affirmed
 that decision. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master
 Fund, Nos. 20-2271, 20-2272 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2023).
      The parties in this case agreed that if we affirmed the
 Board’s finding of unpatentability, then the Patent and
 Trademark Office would be obligated to cancel the claims
 of both patents and, therefore, VirnetX would no longer
 have a legally cognizable cause of action against Apple. See
 Oral     Argument      at    13:42-13:45,     available    at
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/de-
 fault.aspx?fl=21-1672_09082022.mp3 (VirnetX agreeing
 that in this eventuality it would be appropriate to “remand
 for dismissal because we’ve lost our cause of action”); Reply
 Br. 2. Now that we have affirmed the Board’s finding of
Case: 21-1672       Document: 75        Page: 3   Filed: 03/31/2023

 VIRNETX INC.   v. APPLE INC.                                   3

 unpatentability, VirnetX has lost its cause of action, and
 its dispute with Apple is moot. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v.
 Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
    Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment
 and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                                COSTS
 Costs shall be assessed against Appellant.