Virnetx Loses Court Battle To Cisco Over VPN Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virnetx Loses Court Battle To Cisco Over VPN Patent

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday March 17, 2013 @05:59AM from the better-luck-next-time dept.

schneidafunk writes "VirnetX, a patent-licensing firm with 14 employees, has seen its stock price fall after it lost a major patent trial in Texas on Thursday. A jury there ruled that Cisco did not infringe VirnetX's patents on virtual private networks (VPNs), and that the networking giant didn't have to pay $258 million in damages."

53 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Awwww.... by Dexter+Herbivore · 2013-03-17 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Poor patent troll. I'd like to see more losses like this for these parasites.
1. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like when a patent or copyright troll is shown to be making baseless lawsuits, there should be some more appropriate response. When child molesters are convicted, their names and faces are made public. Shouldn't there be a website for bottom-feeding suckerfish? Shouldn't their neighbors be warned?
2. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is still a loss for Cisco. The fact that it made it to trial means they had to spend millions on lawyers and VirnetX probably made sure discovery was as expensive as possible. For patent trolls there's really no downside for them. They don't make anything, so they aren't open to countersuits, and they simply bought the patent from someone else so there's not much to do discovery against on their side.
3. Re:Awwww.... by Zemran · 2013-03-17 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is one part of US law that I will always fail to understand. Their action caused harm and CISCO should be able to claim for those damages. I have counter sued twice in the UK when I had to go to court over things that should not have gone to court.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
4. Re:Awwww.... by AK+Marc · 2013-03-17 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In the US, a counter suit is a counter claim for the same issue. If your neighbor cut down a tree rooted in your yard that shaded or dropped leaves on his, and sued you for the cost of removal, then you can "counter-sue" for the loss of the tree. You can't counter sue for his fence being over the property line, or for legal costs for a matter not yet resolved. You can re-sue for legal costs later, but you'd need proof they did so recklessly or otherwise inappropriately. Otherwise, you just ask the judge for costs in the case and hope he awards them, he usually doesn't.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
5. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 07:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In other western countries citizens expect the government to be proactive about preventing harmful actions. Americans expect that much less and instead the idea is that lawsuits after-the-fact play the role that governments play in other countries. That can only work if everyone is allowed to sue everyone else for any reason with no consequences other than legal fees. It's a bit like how you can't have the police jailed if they investigate someone innocent - being a policeman would be too risky in that case. In a sense, in the US, everyone is supposed to be police and lawsuits is how that is done. It's the same thing with how Americans want to carry guns so they can take out criminals. It is a part of their culture.
6. Re:Awwww.... by gmanterry · 2013-03-17 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  Seems like when a patent or copyright troll is shown to be making baseless lawsuits, there should be some more appropriate response. When child molesters are convicted, their names and faces are made public. Shouldn't there be a website for bottom-feeding suckerfish? Shouldn't their neighbors be warned?
  The looser should be forced to pay the winner's entire court costs. That would put an end to this crap in a nanosecond.
  
  --
  Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
7. Re:Awwww.... by loufoque · 2013-03-17 07:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The looser of the two must be quite loose already.
8. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  While that sounds good in theory, it would actually prevent people from suing companies. For example, if I were injured by a pharmaceutical and found there was negligence or falsified data and went to sue them - they would have a lot more money to buy lawyers, delays, appeals, etc. until I either go bankrupt and quit or they win. And then I have to pay their court costs. Boy, that just does not sound right.
9. Re:Awwww.... by mpoulton · 2013-03-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up! This is the most accurate and succinct explanation of the way American culture and law differs from most of the world. It all boils down to limitation of government and emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities. With that said, there are legal remedies for completely egregious abuse of the civil legal system. Suing based on fabricated facts (not mistakes of fact, but actual lies) or with absolutely no legal basis for the claim gives rise to a counterclaim for abuse of process or malicious prosecution, and will get an attorney disciplined or disbarred. The system is supposed to be self-policing, and it generally works. Cases like this one are usually far less clear-cut than they seem, and are rarely totally meritless. As an attorney, most of the ridiculous and abusive lawsuits that I have seen were filed by people representing themselves without an attorney.
  
  --
  I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
10. Re:Awwww.... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-03-17 08:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Seems like when a patent or copyright troll is shown to be making baseless lawsuits, there should be some more appropriate response. When child molesters are convicted, their names and faces are made public. Shouldn't there be a website for bottom-feeding suckerfish?
  That's not a very nice or fair comparison.
  Please, think of the real bottom-feeders out there performing a useful ecological function in our lakes and rivers.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
11. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What doesn't sound right to me is that the one with money can decide the outcome of the trial. That problem kind of trumps all other problems I would say.
12. Re:Awwww.... by mcgrew · 2013-03-17 09:58 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The looser should be forced to pay the winner's entire court costs.
  I don't think you said what you thought you said. You said "the one that is less tight should be forced to pay the winner's entire court costs" which makes absolutely no sense at all. Educationally handicapped?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
13. Re:Awwww.... by hairyfeet · 2013-03-17 11:19 · Score: 2
  
  But should we be mad at the troll, or the government that encourages and rewards patent trolling?
  I mean take for example the stock market, from the turn of the 20th century all the way up to the mid 80s most companies were working towards long term growth and stability and then we suddenly go to this crazy batshit "flip this stock" kind of situation where its all about the short term, what happened? The government injected massive amounts of money into the market and distorted the system so that you were penalized for long term slow growth and rewarded for any kind of short term bounce to the stock even if the cause of that bounce would kill the company later, such as stuffing the channel or selling off the assets.
  Yes patent trolls are fucking bad, we all know this but how do we change it? Going after the trolls does nothing because a dozen more will be ready to play lawsuit lotto and take a shot at the big time, no what we need is serious patent reform to take the incentives for trolling out of the equation. Then and ONLY THEN will things get better, until then companies like Cisco are just playing whack a mole .But since it gives Cisco and other companies an easy way to set up a tollbooth to kill competition or leech money from it, look at MSFT and Android for example, that even when they get dinged occasionally by a troll they write it off as a business expense and keep the status quo.
  So what we need to do is similar to what we did with SOPA/PIPA, get a grass roots movement for fixing this mess going so that these corps won't get rewarded for trolling.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
14. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  Wat? This is wrong. You can have a counterclaim for any reason. It doesn't have to be directly related to whatever you're being sued over.
15. Re:Awwww.... by mcgrew · 2013-03-17 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  How about that, a semi-literate with mod points! If you not only can't spell a four letter word without a spell checker and, what's more, don't notice that it completely changes the meaning of what you were trying to say, you need to get your GED.
  Too damned many alliterates here these days (and no, that wasn't misspelled, look it up).
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
16. Re:Awwww.... by AK+Marc · 2013-03-17 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Must depend on jurisdiction. I was in a simialr situation and advised differently by a lawyer. A counterclaim is for the issue under adjuducation, it isn't a means to lump every grievance you've stored up against anyone that sues you. I was being sued by my mother-in-law, and couldn't counter-claim for the car she stole from me, so I filed a separate suit on that, and she dropped the first, so I dropped the second.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
17. Re:Awwww.... by GigaplexNZ · 2013-03-17 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  How about that, a semi-literate with mod points! If you not only can't spell a four letter word without a spell checker and, what's more, don't notice that it completely changes the meaning of what you were trying to say, you need to get your GED.
  A spell checker won't help as it was still a correctly spelt word.
18. Re:Awwww.... by gstrickler · 2013-03-17 14:43 · Score: 2
  
  Which is why I have advocated for loser pays as an option the judge can impose on a case-by-case basis, when the facts/merits of the case warrant it.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
19. Re:Awwww.... by Dahan · 2013-03-17 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Too damned many alliterates here these days (and no, that wasn't misspelled, look it up).
  Fine, I'll take the bait: Merriam-Webster says it's a verb, but you're using it as a noun. Wiktionary agrees that it's a verb. So what were you trying to say? In English this time.
20. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-18 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why I have advocated for loser pays as an option the judge can impose on a case-by-case basis, when the facts/merits of the case warrant it.
  Which is why that's the case already...
21. Re:Awwww.... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2013-03-18 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  This is one part of US law that I will always fail to understand. Their action caused harm and CISCO should be able to claim for those damages. I have counter sued twice in the UK when I had to go to court over things that should not have gone to court.
  I'm American and my best friend is too and he is a lawyer. I have asked him about this sort of thing, so I can comment on it and offer a sort of American legal perspective, although again, I am not a lawyer myself.
  
  Basically in US law it is possible for a sued party to go after the people who sued them if they win, but it's very difficult to prevail. See, judges and lawyers like our very broken system just fine as it is because it provides employment for them. Judges very rarely will award damages to a sued party after they win in court because doing so could discourage other lawsuits. No joke. The legal system argues that "innocent" parties will be afraid to sue if they can be held liable for costs if they lose anyway (which is your tactic admission by those in the legal system that verdicts are not always correct or fair) and that would discourage truly wronged people from trying to go to court in the first place. So in America, big companies like Cisco just write it off as part of the expense of doing business that some patent troll will take them to court.
22. Re:Awwww.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-18 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  individual rights and responsibilities, fuck me
  yeah when was the last time an individual actually took any responsibility for anything but himself
  fucking exceptionalim muricans
23. Re:Awwww.... by mcgrew · 2013-03-18 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, I misspelled that (thanks, Mozilla). It should have been aliterate, FireFox tagged it as a misspelling so I went with the spell check. DOH!
  Definition of ALITERACY
  : the quality or state of being able to read but uninterested in doing so
  â" aliterate adjective or noun
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
24. Re:Awwww.... by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-18 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Americans realize that Government cannot protect everyone at all times, and doesn't try to. It works for us. We don't have to be like everyone else. I just wish people leaving their shitty ass countries coming here to America thinking they want to build us into the same shitty ass country they left would just stay home. If you don't like how we do things, don't come here, expecting us to change.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
25. Re:Awwww.... by mcgrew · 2013-03-18 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  A spell checker won't help as it was still a correctly spelt word.
  That was the whole point. It still stands that he's an aliterate (which FireFox pegs as a misspelling).
  Dew knot truss you're spill checker!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
26. Re:Awwww.... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-03-20 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot to mention that some of them are quite tasty as well!
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Employees by Dan+East · 2013-03-17 06:05 · Score: 2

Let's hope that VirnetX is down to 0 employees now.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:What we need is communism by viperidaenz · 2013-03-17 06:11 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, you annihilate atom bomb!
Publically traded? by MMC+Monster · 2013-03-17 06:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that a 14 employee company is publicly traded? Or is this common?
I've certainly worked in much larger companies that weren't on the stock market.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
1. Re:Publically traded? by Dexter+Herbivore · 2013-03-17 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No doubt it'll be structured that way to avoid liability for whatever parent group owns them. A nice little sock puppet to take all the risk and pass any reward on to the limited shareholding.
2. Re:Publically traded? by AK+Marc · 2013-03-17 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I worked for a company that was that small and publicly traded. There was a mining company in the 1800s that became publicly listed. They eventually closed all operations, but were never de-listed. They had a few owners, mostly old ladies. Someone thought it a good idea (probably Mr. Prather) to buy up the outstanding shares and start an Internet startup like company. That way, they never needed an IPO, they had been public for 100 years. And the main company had a board and CEO, and a secretary. The subsidiaries, Host Communications being the one I worked for, had a full structure, and were privately owned by the public company that wasn't well traded. That's about all I remember off the top of my head, and my google foo is weak (the old corporate web site looks to be offline). But yes, I've worked for a publicly traded company with essentially 2 employees (and subsidiaries).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
3. Re:Publically traded? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of an IPO is to raise money. If they don't want or need to raise money, they can remain private.
  Additionally, all exchanges have listing requirements -- minimum market cap, minimum share price, minimum income, SEC filings, as well as charging listing fees. Even the pink sheets/penny stocks have filing requirements.
4. Re:Publically traded? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Berkshire Hathaway only has about 21 employees if you exclude subsidiaries (source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2009ar/2009ar.pdf)
5. Re:Publically traded? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  I seem to recall that Berkshire Hathaway has about 16 employees. Though they're a bit special.
6. Re:Publically traded? by Bill+Dimm · 2013-03-17 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The point of an IPO is to raise money.
  That's one reason to go public. Other reasons would be so that owners can more easily cash out their shares, or so that employees can be given stock/options with some liquidity and established value. I've seen stories like AK Marc's before -- it's called a reverse takover.
7. Re:Publically traded? by AK+Marc · 2013-03-17 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  I can't find the old one. I thought it was BULL (Bull Run, originally a mining company). But they bought/sold/merged and TCMI looked to be the last holder, and is now a company with no value. The stock is trading as $0.00 (looks to be under $0.01, rounded down) and a total market cap of $35k. So, for $35k, you can own a publicly traded company. If nobody is going to pay to have it de-listed, it'll sit there. BULL seemed to last 100+ years in that state until HCI (Host Communications) acquired them, then quickly put them out of business. But they may have just changed the name to TCMI, and it's running along as a shell, ready for another 100 year slumber (or scrape together $35,000 and buy it and own your very own publicly traded company - think of the write-offs).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Half the battle by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2013-03-17 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a good thing when companies with deep pockets stand up patent trolls and win, but I worry that they'll just move to smaller, softer targets who can't afford to fight. Even after widely-publicized losses like this we'll continue to suffer from patent trolls until we have some meaningful legal reforms.

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
1. Re:Half the battle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-18 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  is knowing
Before complaining about the USPTO... by Theaetetus · 2013-03-17 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

... note that the jury also found that the patents were valid over the prior art. Cisco doesn't practice the invention in the patents, but that doesn't mean that the patents don't cover a valid invention.
1. Re:Before complaining about the USPTO... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, the East Texas jury also found that the likeness of Jesus of Nazareth was in fact represented pictorially in a cow dropping left in the local sale barn after the 4H club meeting.
Re:What we need is communism by mcgrew · 2013-03-17 10:03 · Score: 2

Congratulations on the very worst "in soviet Russia" joke I've ever seen.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Cold day in Hell by Myria · 2013-03-17 10:44 · Score: 1

A patent troll losing their case in Marshall, Texas?

--
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
VirnetX should pay by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 10:53 · Score: 0

Now make VirnetX pay 1 billion for wasting everyone's time.
VirnetX by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 22:50 · Score: 0

Love their buzzword concentrate company name. A capital V because we like Vs. "vir" for virtual to keep up with the current trends, "net" because networking is important in every form. And of course the universal and mandatory capital X which everything associate with tech that respects itself must have.
They were successful against Apple though by bigmadwolf · 2013-03-18 00:15 · Score: 1

They won a $368 million judgement against Apple. Also Siemens caved in and signed an agreement with them. Looks like they are far from dead unfortunately.
Kipling Already Said It by MrLizard · 2013-03-18 02:17 · Score: 1

To any company thinking of giving in to patent trolls, because it's cheaper than fighting them...
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html
Bob Zeidman, patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-18 07:11 · Score: 0

Little Bobby Zeidman gonna be maaaadddddddd!!!