Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 7 — Litigation We have several intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (“USDC”), and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“USCAFC”). VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) (“Apple I”) On August 11, 2010, we filed a complaint against Aastra USA. Inc. (“Aastra”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and NEC Corporation (“NEC”) the USDC in which we alleged that these parties infringe on certain of our patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The cases against each defendant were separated by the judge. Aastra and NEC agreed to sign license agreements with us, and we dropped all accusations of infringement against them. A jury in USDC decided that our patents were not invalid and rendered a verdict of non-infringement by Cisco on March 4, 2013. Our motion for a new Cisco trial was denied and the case against Cisco was closed. On November 6, 2012, a jury in the USDC awarded us over $368,000 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents, plus daily interest up to the final judgment. Apple filed an appeal of the judgment to the USCAFC. On September 16, 2014, USCAFC affirmed the USDC jury’s finding that all four of our patents at issue are valid and confirmed the USDC jury’s finding of infringement of VPN on Demand under many of the asserted claims of our ‘135 and ‘151 patents, and the USDC’s decision to allow evidence about our license and royalty rates regarding the determination of damages. However, the USCAFC vacated the USDC jury’s damages award and some of the USDC’s claim construction with respect to parts of our ‘504 and ‘211 patents and remanded the damages award and determination of infringement with respect to FaceTime back to the USDC for further proceedings. On September 30, 2016, pursuant to the 2014 remand from the USCAFC, a jury in the USDC awarded us $302,400 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents. On September 29, 2017, the USDC entered its final judgment, denied all of Apple’s post-trial motions, granted all our post-trial motions, including our motion for willful infringement and enhanced the royalty rate during the willfulness period from $1.20 to $1.80 per device, and awarded us costs, certain attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest. The total amount in the final judgment was $439,700, including $302,400 (jury verdict), $41,300 (enhanced damages) and $96,000 (costs, fees and interest). On October 27, 2017 Apple appealed the final judgment entered on September 29, 2017 to the USCAFC. Oral arguments in this case were held on January 8, 2019. On January 15, 2019 the Court issued a Rule 36 order affirming the district court’s final judgment. Apple filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on February 21, 2019. On October 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s petition. Apple filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on February 24, 2020. Prior to the Supreme Court decision denying Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari, on February 20, 2020, Apple filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment with the USDC, seeking relief from the district court’s September 29, 2017 final judgment. VirnetX filed a responsive brief in opposition on March 5, 2020. On March 13, 2020, the Company received payment of $454,034 from Apple, representing the previously announced final judgment with interest in this case. Apple has indicated that it will seek restitution of the payment if relief sought in its Rule 60(b) motion is awarded. On April 16, 2020, the USDC ordered Apple to file a supplemental brief with respect to its Rule 60(b) motion within 7 days. The USDC has not ruled in this matter. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) (“Apple II”) This case began on November 6, 2012, when we had filed a complaint against Apple in USDC in which we alleged that Apple infringed on certain of our patents, (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4^th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers; these products were not included in the Apple I case because they were released after the Apple I case was initiated. Post-trial motions hearing was held on July 18, 2018. On August 31, 2018, the USDC entered a Final Judgment and issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions, affirming the jury’s verdict of $502,600 and granting VirnetX motions for supplemental damages, a sunset royalty and the royalty rate of $1.20 per infringing iPhone, iPad and Mac products, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs. On September 20, 2018, pursuant to a Court’s order, attorneys from VirnetX and Apple conferred and agreed, without dispute, to add an amount totaling $93,300 for Bill of Costs and Prejudgment Interest to the $502,600 jury verdict. The total amount in the final judgment in the Apple II case is now $595,900. Apple has filed a notice of appeal with the USCAFC in the Apple II case. On October 9, 2018, USCAFC docketed the appeal as Case No. 19-1050 - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc . On January 24, 2019 Apple filed its opening brief. We filed our response brief on March 1, 2019. Apple filed its reply brief on April 5, 2019. The oral arguments were heard on October 4, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the USCAFC issued an opinion affirming the district court’s findings that Apple is precluded from making certain invalidity arguments and that Apple infringed the ’135 and ’151 patents; reversing the district court’s finding that Apple infringed the ’504 and ’211 patents; and remanding the case for proceedings on damages. Apple sought panel and en banc rehearing, which the USCAFC denied on February 10, 2020. On February 22, 2020, the USDC issued a scheduling order for the parties to brief the court about the need for a new trial for recalculating the damages. We filed our motion for entry of judgment on February 28, 2020. The arguments on this matter were heard on April 14, 2020. In its order, unsealed on May 1, 2020, the district court denied VirnetX’s motion for entry of a new judgment based on the prior juiy verdict and ordered a new jury trial on damages. The jury selection and trial has been scheduled on August 17, 2020. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1671) On March 18, 2018, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,679 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135. We filed a motion to remand on August 23, 2019, which the USCAFC denied on October 1, 2019, directing the parties to address the issues in the merits briefs. On November 7, 2019, we filed another motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex. The USPTO intervened and opposed the remand. The USCAFC granted our motion on January 24, 2020. On March 9, 2020, Cisco and the USPTO both filed petitions for panel and en banc rehearing, which remain pending. McKool Smith P.C. v. VirnetX, Inc., AAA Case No. 01-20-0003-7975 On March 23, 2020, the law firm of McKool Smith, P.C. (“McKool”) filed a Demand for Arbitration against VirnetX, Inc. with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). In its demand, McKool claims that a retention agreement it entered into in 2010 with VirnetX entitles it to a contingency fee arising from the recent 2020 payment made by Apple. McKool claims it is owed $36.3 million (or 8% of the payment). We have filed a general response with AAA denying McKool’s claim and intend to vigorously contest the matter. One or more potential intellectual property infringement claims may also be available to us against certain other companies who have the resources to defend against any such claims. Although we believe these potential claims are likely valid, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we could prevail on such potential claims if we made them. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may distract our management and our other resources, including capital resources, from efforts to successfully commercialize our products. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us.

Note 7 — Litigation

We have several intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (“USDC”), and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“USCAFC”).

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) (“Apple I”)

On August 11, 2010, we filed a complaint against Aastra USA. Inc. (“Aastra”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and NEC Corporation (“NEC”) the USDC in which we alleged that these parties infringe on certain of our patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The cases against each defendant were separated by the judge. Aastra and NEC agreed to sign license agreements with us, and we dropped all accusations of infringement against them. A jury in USDC decided that our patents were not invalid and rendered a verdict of non-infringement by Cisco on March 4, 2013. Our motion for a new Cisco trial was denied and the case against Cisco was closed.

On November 6, 2012, a jury in the USDC awarded us over $368,000 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents, plus daily interest up to the final judgment.

Apple filed an appeal of the judgment to the USCAFC. On September 16, 2014, USCAFC affirmed the USDC jury’s finding that all four of our patents at issue are valid and confirmed the USDC jury’s finding of infringement of VPN on Demand under many of the asserted claims of our ‘135 and ‘151 patents, and the USDC’s decision to allow evidence about our license and royalty rates regarding the determination of damages. However, the USCAFC vacated the USDC jury’s damages award and some of the USDC’s claim construction with respect to parts of our ‘504 and ‘211 patents and remanded the damages award and determination of infringement with respect to FaceTime back to the USDC for further proceedings.

On September 30, 2016, pursuant to the 2014 remand from the USCAFC, a jury in the USDC awarded us $302,400 for Apple’s infringement of four of our patents. On September 29, 2017, the USDC entered its final judgment, denied all of Apple’s post-trial motions, granted all our post-trial motions, including our motion for willful infringement and enhanced the royalty rate during the willfulness period from $1.20 to $1.80 per device, and awarded us costs, certain attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest. The total amount in the final judgment was $439,700, including $302,400 (jury verdict), $41,300 (enhanced damages) and $96,000 (costs, fees and interest).

On October 27, 2017 Apple appealed the final judgment entered on September 29, 2017 to the USCAFC. Oral arguments in this case were held on January 8, 2019. On January 15, 2019 the Court issued a Rule 36 order affirming the district court’s final judgment. Apple filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on February 21, 2019. On October 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s petition. Apple filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on February 24, 2020. Prior to the Supreme Court decision denying Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari, on February 20, 2020, Apple filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment with the USDC, seeking relief from the district court’s September 29, 2017 final judgment. VirnetX filed a responsive brief in opposition on March 5, 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the Company received payment of $454,034 from Apple, representing the previously announced final judgment with interest in this case. Apple has indicated that it will seek restitution of the payment if relief sought in its Rule 60(b) motion is awarded. On April 16, 2020, the USDC ordered Apple to file a supplemental brief with respect to its Rule 60(b) motion within 7 days. The USDC has not ruled in this matter.

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) (“Apple II”)

This case began on November 6, 2012, when we had filed a complaint against Apple in USDC in which we alleged that Apple infringed on certain of our patents, (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151). We sought damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4^th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers; these products were not included in the Apple I case because they were released after the Apple I case was initiated. Post-trial motions hearing was held on July 18, 2018. On August 31, 2018, the USDC entered a Final Judgment and issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions, affirming the jury’s verdict of $502,600 and granting VirnetX motions for supplemental damages, a sunset royalty and the royalty rate of $1.20 per infringing iPhone, iPad and Mac products, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs. On September 20, 2018, pursuant to a Court’s order, attorneys from VirnetX and Apple conferred and agreed, without dispute, to add an amount totaling $93,300 for Bill of Costs and Prejudgment Interest to the $502,600 jury verdict. The total amount in the final judgment in the Apple II case is now $595,900. Apple has filed a notice of appeal with the USCAFC in the Apple II case.

On October 9, 2018, USCAFC docketed the appeal as Case No. 19-1050 - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc . On January 24, 2019 Apple filed its opening brief. We filed our response brief on March 1, 2019. Apple filed its reply brief on April 5, 2019. The oral arguments were heard on October 4, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the USCAFC issued an opinion affirming the district court’s findings that Apple is precluded from making certain invalidity arguments and that Apple infringed the ’135 and ’151 patents; reversing the district court’s finding that Apple infringed the ’504 and ’211 patents; and remanding the case for proceedings on damages. Apple sought panel and en banc rehearing, which the USCAFC denied on February 10, 2020.

On February 22, 2020, the USDC issued a scheduling order for the parties to brief the court about the need for a new trial for recalculating the damages. We filed our motion for entry of judgment on February 28, 2020. The arguments on this matter were heard on April 14, 2020. In its order, unsealed on May 1, 2020, the district court denied VirnetX’s motion for entry of a new judgment based on the prior juiy verdict and ordered a new jury trial on damages. The jury selection and trial has been scheduled on August 17, 2020.

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1671)

On March 18, 2018, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,679 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135. We filed a motion to remand on August 23, 2019, which the USCAFC denied on October 1, 2019, directing the parties to address the issues in the merits briefs. On November 7, 2019, we filed another motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex. The USPTO intervened and opposed the remand. The USCAFC granted our motion on January 24, 2020. On March 9, 2020, Cisco and the USPTO both filed petitions for panel and en banc rehearing, which remain pending.

McKool Smith P.C. v. VirnetX, Inc., AAA Case No. 01-20-0003-7975

On March 23, 2020, the law firm of McKool Smith, P.C. (“McKool”) filed a Demand for Arbitration against VirnetX, Inc. with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). In its demand, McKool claims that a retention agreement it entered into in 2010 with VirnetX entitles it to a contingency fee arising from the recent 2020 payment made by Apple. McKool claims it is owed $36.3 million (or 8% of the payment). We have filed a general response with AAA denying McKool’s claim and intend to vigorously contest the matter.

One or more potential intellectual property infringement claims may also be available to us against certain other companies who have the resources to defend against any such claims. Although we believe these potential claims are likely valid, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we could prevail on such potential claims if we made them. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may distract our management and our other resources, including capital resources, from efforts to successfully commercialize our products.

Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us.