Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

VirnetX Inc. et al v. Apple Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00855 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2014)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Case No.
No. 6:12-cv-00855, Dkt. No. 180
Decided
August 8, 2014
Judge
Leonard Davis, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth in this Order. The Court DENIES Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness 148
Length
27 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (“the ’135 P atent”), 7,418,504 (“the ’504 Patent”), 7,490,151 (“the ’151 Patent”), 7,921,211 (“the ’211 Patent”), 8,051,181 (“the ’181 Patent”), and 8,504,697 (“the ’697 Patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). Also before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness (Docket No. 148 ). On May 20, 2014, the parties presented arguments on the disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing.