Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 7 — Litigation We have one intellectual property infringement lawsuit pending against Apple, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that this party infringes on certain of our patents. We seek damages and injunctive relief in all the complaints. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) – Consolidated Lead Case On March 30, 2015, the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, issued an order finding substantial overlap between the remanded portions of the Civil Action Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED (VirnetX vs. Cisco et. al.), and the ongoing Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.). The court consolidated the two civil actions under Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.) and designated it as the lead case. The jury trial in this case was held on January 25, 2016. On February 4, 2016, a jury in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, awarded us $625.6 million in a verdict against Apple Inc. ("Apple") for infringing four of our US patents, marking it the second time a federal jury has found Apple liable for infringing VirnetX’s patented technology. The verdict includes royalties awarded to us based on an earlier patent infringement finding (Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) against Apple. The jury found that Apple’s modified VPN On-Demand, iMessage and FaceTime services infringed VirnetX’s patents and that Apple’s infringement was willful. In addition to determining the royalty owed by Apple for its prior infringement, this verdict also includes an award based on the jury’s finding that Apple’s modified VPN On Demand, iMessage and FaceTime services have continued to infringe VirnetX’s patents. In its order, issued on February 16, 2016, the court has set all post-trial motions for hearing on May 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. The court has also ordered both parties to attend mediation by May 16, 2016. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (13-1489-LP VirnetX, Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) On August 11, 2010, we initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against Aastra USA, Inc. ("Aastra"), Apple, Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco"), and NEC Corporation ("NEC") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we alleged that these parties infringe on certain of our patents. We sought damages and injunctive relief. Aastra and NEC agreed to sign license agreements with us and we agreed to drop all the accusations of infringement against them. At the pre-trial hearing, the judge decided to conduct separate jury trial for each defendant, and try only the case against Apple on the scheduled trial date. The jury trial of our case against Cisco was held on March 4, 2013. The jury in our case against Cisco came back with a verdict of non-infringement also determined that all our patents-in-suit patents are not invalid. Our motions for a new trial and Cisco’s infringement of certain VirnetX patents were denied and the case against Cisco was closed. The jury trial of our case against Apple was held on October 31, 2012. On November 6, 2012, a jury in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, awarded us over $368 million in a verdict against Apple for infringing four of our patents. On February 26, 2013, the court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions resulting from the prior jury verdict denying Apple’s motion to reduce the damages awarded by the jury for past infringement. The Court further denied Apple’s request for a new trial on the liability and damages portions of the verdict and granted our motions for pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and post-verdict damages to date. The Court ordered that Apple pay $34 in daily interest up to final judgment and $330 in daily damages for infringement up to final judgment for certain Apple devices included in the verdict. The Court denied our request for a permanent injunction and severed the future infringement portion into its own separate proceedings under Case 6:13-CV-00211-LED. On July 3, 2013, Apple filed an appeal of the judgment dated February 27, 2013 and order dated June 4, 2013 denying Apple’s motion to alter or amend the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (USCAFC). On September 16, 2014, USCAFC issued their opinion, affirming the jury’s finding that all 4 of our patents are valid, confirming the jury’s finding of infringement of VPN on Demand under many of the asserted claims of our ‘135 and ‘151 patents, and confirming the district’s court’s decision to allow evidence concerning our licenses and royalty rates in connection with the determination of damages. In its opinion, the USCAFC also vacated the jury’s damages award and the district court’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 –for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On October 16, 2014, we filed a petition with the USCAFC, requesting a rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s September 14, 2014, decision concerning VirnetX’s litigation against Apple Inc. On December 16, 2014, USCAFC denied our petition requesting a rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit's September 14, 2014, decision and remanded the case back to the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On February 25, 2015, USCAFC granted Apple's motions to lift stay of proceedings and vacate Case 6:13-CV-00211-LED. All the issues at hand in Case 6:13-CV-00211-LED will now be addressed as a part of VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) - Consolidated Lead Case. On March 30, 2015, the court issued an order finding substantial overlap between the remanded portions of this case and the ongoing Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.). The court consolidated the two civil actions under Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.) and designated it as the lead case. All future updates will now be provided under VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) – Consolidated Lead Case. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) On November 6, 2012, we filed a new complaint against Apple Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division for willfully infringing four of our patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151, and seeking both an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers. Due to their release dates, these products were not included in the previous lawsuit that concluded with a Jury verdict on November 6, 2012 that was subsequently upheld by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, on February 26, 2013. On July 1, 2013, we filed a consolidated and amended complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 and consolidate Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00563-LED. On August 27, 2013, we filed an amended complaint including allegations of willful infringement related to U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697 seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The Markman hearing in this case was held on May 20, 2014 and on August 8, 2014, issued its Markman Order, denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness, in which Apple alleged that some of the disputed claims terms in the patents asserted by us were invalid for indefiniteness. In a separate order, the court granted in part and denied in part our motion for partial summary judgment on Apple’s invalidity counterclaims, precluding Apple from asserting invalidity as a defense against infringement of the claims that were tried before a jury in our prior litigation against Apple (VirnetX vs. Cisco et. al., Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED). The jury trial in this case was scheduled for October 13, 2015. On March 30, 2015, the court issued an order finding substantial overlap between this case and the remanded portions of Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED (VirnetX vs. Cisco et. al.). The court consolidated the two civil actions under Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.) and designated it as the lead case. All future updates will now be provided under VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) – Consolidated Lead Case. 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 worth pursuing, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we will prevail on such potential claims. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may preclude our ability to commercialize our initial products, which are currently in development. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings, and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us by any governmental authority or other party.

Note 7 — Litigation

We have one intellectual property infringement lawsuit pending against Apple, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that this party infringes on certain of our patents. We seek damages and injunctive relief in all the complaints.

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) – Consolidated Lead Case

On March 30, 2015, the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, issued an order finding substantial overlap between the remanded portions of the Civil Action Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED (VirnetX vs. Cisco et. al.), and the ongoing Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.). The court consolidated the two civil actions under Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.) and designated it as the lead case. The jury trial in this case was held on January 25, 2016. On February 4, 2016, a jury in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, awarded us $625.6 million in a verdict against Apple Inc. ("Apple") for infringing four of our US patents, marking it the second time a federal jury has found Apple liable for infringing VirnetX’s patented technology. The verdict includes royalties awarded to us based on an earlier patent infringement finding (Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED) against Apple. The jury found that Apple’s modified VPN On-Demand, iMessage and FaceTime services infringed VirnetX’s patents and that Apple’s infringement was willful. In addition to determining the royalty owed by Apple for its prior infringement, this verdict also includes an award based on the jury’s finding that Apple’s modified VPN On Demand, iMessage and FaceTime services have continued to infringe VirnetX’s patents. In its order, issued on February 16, 2016, the court has set all post-trial motions for hearing on May 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. The court has also ordered both parties to attend mediation by May 16, 2016.

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (13-1489-LP VirnetX, Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED)

On August 11, 2010, we initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against Aastra USA, Inc. ("Aastra"), Apple, Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco"), and NEC Corporation ("NEC") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we alleged that these parties infringe on certain of our patents. We sought damages and injunctive relief. Aastra and NEC agreed to sign license agreements with us and we agreed to drop all the accusations of infringement against them. At the pre-trial hearing, the judge decided to conduct separate jury trial for each defendant, and try only the case against Apple on the scheduled trial date. The jury trial of our case against Cisco was held on March 4, 2013. The jury in our case against Cisco came back with a verdict of non-infringement also determined that all our patents-in-suit patents are not invalid. Our motions for a new trial and Cisco’s infringement of certain VirnetX patents were denied and the case against Cisco was closed.

The jury trial of our case against Apple was held on October 31, 2012. On November 6, 2012, a jury in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, awarded us over $368 million in a verdict against Apple for infringing four of our patents. On February 26, 2013, the court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions resulting from the prior jury verdict denying Apple’s motion to reduce the damages awarded by the jury for past infringement. The Court further denied Apple’s request for a new trial on the liability and damages portions of the verdict and granted our motions for pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and post-verdict damages to date. The Court ordered that Apple pay $34 in daily interest up to final judgment and $330 in daily damages for infringement up to final judgment for certain Apple devices included in the verdict. The Court denied our request for a permanent injunction and severed the future infringement portion into its own separate proceedings under Case 6:13-CV-00211-LED.

On July 3, 2013, Apple filed an appeal of the judgment dated February 27, 2013 and order dated June 4, 2013 denying Apple’s motion to alter or amend the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (USCAFC). On September 16, 2014, USCAFC issued their opinion, affirming the jury’s finding that all 4 of our patents are valid, confirming the jury’s finding of infringement of VPN on Demand under many of the asserted claims of our ‘135 and ‘151 patents, and confirming the district’s court’s decision to allow evidence concerning our licenses and royalty rates in connection with the determination of damages. In its opinion, the USCAFC also vacated the jury’s damages award and the district court’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 –for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On October 16, 2014, we filed a petition with the USCAFC, requesting a rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s September 14, 2014, decision concerning VirnetX’s litigation against Apple Inc. On December 16, 2014, USCAFC denied our petition requesting a rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit's September 14, 2014, decision and remanded the case back to the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On February 25, 2015, USCAFC granted Apple's motions to lift stay of proceedings and vacate Case 6:13-CV-00211-LED. All the issues at hand in Case 6:13-CV-00211-LED will now be addressed as a part of VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) - Consolidated Lead Case. On March 30, 2015, the court issued an order finding substantial overlap between the remanded portions of this case and the ongoing Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.). The court consolidated the two civil actions under Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.) and designated it as the lead case. All future updates will now be provided under VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) – Consolidated Lead Case.

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

On November 6, 2012, we filed a new complaint against Apple Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division for willfully infringing four of our patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151, and seeking both an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers. Due to their release dates, these products were not included in the previous lawsuit that concluded with a Jury verdict on November 6, 2012 that was subsequently upheld by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, on February 26, 2013. On July 1, 2013, we filed a consolidated and amended complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 and consolidate Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00563-LED. On August 27, 2013, we filed an amended complaint including allegations of willful infringement related to U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697 seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The Markman hearing in this case was held on May 20, 2014 and on August 8, 2014, issued its Markman Order, denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness, in which Apple alleged that some of the disputed claims terms in the patents asserted by us were invalid for indefiniteness. In a separate order, the court granted in part and denied in part our motion for partial summary judgment on Apple’s invalidity counterclaims, precluding Apple from asserting invalidity as a defense against infringement of the claims that were tried before a jury in our prior litigation against Apple (VirnetX vs. Cisco et. al., Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED). The jury trial in this case was scheduled for October 13, 2015. On March 30, 2015, the court issued an order finding substantial overlap between this case and the remanded portions of Case 6:10-CV-00417-LED (VirnetX vs. Cisco et. al.). The court consolidated the two civil actions under Civil Action Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.) and designated it as the lead case. All future updates will now be provided under VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) – Consolidated Lead Case.

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 worth pursuing, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we will prevail on such potential claims. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may preclude our ability to commercialize our initial products, which are currently in development. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings, and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us by any governmental authority or other party.