Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 12 – Litigation (all dollar amounts in this section are expressed in thousands except for rates per device) We have multiple 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 judgement, denied all of Apple’s post-trial motions, and 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 judgement was $439,700, including $302,400 (jury verdict), $41,300 (enhanced damages) and $96,000 (costs, fees and interest). On October 27, 2017 Apple filed its notice of appeal of this final judgement to the USCAFC. Apple filed its opening brief on March 19, 2018. We filed our response on April 4, 2018. On April 11, 2018, USCAFC designated Cases 18-1197-CB, Case 17-1368 and Case 17-1591 as companion cases and assigned to the same merits panel. Events and developments after this order are described below under VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) (“Consolidated Appeal”). 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 judgement 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 accepted the notice and docketed it as Case No. 19-1050 - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. All subsequent events and developments in this case are described below under VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1050) (“Apple II Appeal”). VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) (“Consolidated Appeal”) On April 11, 2018, the USCAFC in an order designated the following appeals as companion cases and assigned to the same merits panel; ● VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) On December 16, 2016, we filed appeals with the USCAFC, appealing the invalidity findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in IPR2015-01046, and on December 20, 2016 for IPR2015-1047, involving our U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, and 7,490,151. These appeals also involve Apple, and one of them involves Black Swamp IP, LLC. Oral arguments in this case were argued on January 8, 2019. On July 8, 2019, the USCAFC issued its opinion vacating and remanding both decisions. The court agreed with us that the PTAB misconstrued the patent claims, that many of the PTAB’s invalidity findings lacked substantial evidence, and that the PTAB Board abused its discretion in denying us the opportunity to file a motion for additional discovery as to the real party-in-interest issues. The underlying inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings are currently pending before the PTAB. ● VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1197-CB) (Appeal of Apple I Case) 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 Judgement. Apple filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on February 21, 2019. On March 12, 2019, the Court invited us to respond to Apple’s petition on or before March 26, 2019. We filed our response on March 22, 2019. On July 1, 2019 Apple filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding the impact of the USCAFC’s decision in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1751), issued on June 28, 2019 (described below). We filed a response to Apple’s motion and a contingent motion for leave to file a responsive supplemental brief on July 11, 2019. On July 17, 2019, the USCAFC granted both motions and ordered Apple’s and our supplemental briefs filed. On August 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s petition for panel and en banc rehearing. On August 7, 2019, Apple filed a motion to vacate the August 1, 2019 order and for leave to file a second request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc. On October 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s motion. Apple subsequently requested an extension for its deadline to petition for a writ of certiorari, and that deadline was extended until December 29, 2019. 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 Writ of Certiorari, on February 20, 2020, Apple filed a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment in the U.S. District Court (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, 6:10-cv-00417) seeking relief from the 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 filed a motion in the USDC seeking to vacate the USDC's final judgment and has indicated that it will seek restitution of the payment if relief is awarded. The USDC has not ruled in this matter. ● VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 17-1591) On February 7, 2017, we filed appeals with the USCAFC, appealing the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-parties’ reexamination nos. 95/001,788, 95/001,789, and 95/001,856 related to our U.S. Patent Nos. 7,921,211 and 7,418,504. Oral arguments in this case were argued on January 8, 2019. On July 1, 2019 Apple filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding the impact of the USCAFC’s decision in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1751), issued on June 28, 2019 (described below). On August 1, 2019, the USCAFC issued an opinion in this case agreeing with us that the PTAB could not maintain two of those reexaminations (initiated by Apple) with respect to claims as to which there has been a prior “final decision” on patent validity entered by a federal court. The court instructed PTAB to terminate those reexamination proceedings with respect to claims 1-35 of the ‘504 patent and claims 36-59 of the ‘211 patent. The court affirmed PTAB’s invalidity findings with respect to the remaining patent claims. Apple filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on August 26, 2019. We filed a separate request for panel rehearing on September 3, 2019. Our request was denied on September 19, 2019, and Apple’s request was denied on October 11, 2019. All decisions are final in this case. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1050) (“Apple II Appeal”) 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, 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 initial brief on February 28, 2020. All briefings have been completed. Court’s decision in the matter is awaited. VirnetX Inc. (USCAFC Case 17-2593) On September 22, 2017, we filed with the USCAFC appeals of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in IPR2016-00693 and IPR2016-00957 involving our U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211. The briefing in these appeals has not taken place. The entity that initiated the IPRs, Black Swamp IP, LLC, indicated on October 18, 2017, that it would not participate in the appeals. On November 27, 2017, the USPTO indicated that it would intervene in the appeals. On January 19, 2018, the USCAFC stayed these appeals pending the USCAFC’s decision in Case 17-1591. On October 25, 2019, we and the USPTO filed a joint request that the deadline to inform the USCAFC how these appeals should proceed be extended until November 1, 2019. On November 15, 2019, we and the USPTO requested that the USCAFC stay this appeal pending resolution of any petition for rehearing in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140. The USCAFC denied the stay request on November 27, 2019. On January 6, 2020, we filed a motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which was granted on February 27, 2020. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1751) On March 30, 2018, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,851 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504. Oral arguments in this case were held on June 4, 2019. On June 28, 2019, the USCAFC issued its opinion vacating the PTAB’s invalidity findings with respect to claims 5, 12, and 13 and remanding to the PTAB for further proceedings. The court affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity findings with respect to the remaining patent claims. Cisco filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on August 12, 2019. Cisco’s request was denied on October 1, 2019. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1043) On October 1, 2018, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,746 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,839,759. We filed our opening brief on March 15, 2019. Cisco filed its response brief on June 19, 2019. We filed our reply brief on August 14, 2019. Cisco filed a motion to submit a sur-reply brief on August 26, 2019, which we opposed. On September 27, 2019, the USCAFC issued an order deferring resolution of Cisco’s motion for the merits panel. Oral argument was held on January 8, 2020. On January 21, 2020, the USCAFC issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the PTAB’s decision. 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. Our opening brief is currently due on November 12, 2019. 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. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1725) On March 29, 2019, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,792 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180. We filed a motion to remand on September 10, 2019. We filed a supplemental motion to remand in light of Arthrex on November 22, 2019, which the USCAFC granted on January 24, 2020. Cisco filed a petition for panel and en banc rehearing on February 24, 2020, which remains pending. 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 12 – Litigation (all dollar amounts in this section are expressed in thousands except for rates per device)

We have multiple 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 judgement, denied all of Apple’s post-trial motions, and 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 judgement was $439,700, including $302,400 (jury verdict), $41,300 (enhanced damages) and $96,000 (costs, fees and interest).

On October 27, 2017 Apple filed its notice of appeal of this final judgement to the USCAFC. Apple filed its opening brief on March 19, 2018. We filed our response on April 4, 2018. On April 11, 2018, USCAFC designated Cases 18-1197-CB, Case 17-1368 and Case 17-1591 as companion cases and assigned to the same merits panel. Events and developments after this order are described below under VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) (“Consolidated Appeal”).

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 judgement 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 accepted the notice and docketed it as Case No. 19-1050 - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. All subsequent events and developments in this case are described below under VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1050) (“Apple II Appeal”).

VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368) (“Consolidated Appeal”)

On April 11, 2018, the USCAFC in an order designated the following appeals as companion cases and assigned to the same merits panel;

● VirnetX Inc. v. The Mangrove Partners (USCAFC Case 17-1368)

On December 16, 2016, we filed appeals with the USCAFC, appealing the invalidity findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in IPR2015-01046, and on December 20, 2016 for IPR2015-1047, involving our U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, and 7,490,151. These appeals also involve Apple, and one of them involves Black Swamp IP, LLC. Oral arguments in this case were argued on January 8, 2019.

On July 8, 2019, the USCAFC issued its opinion vacating and remanding both decisions. The court agreed with us that the PTAB misconstrued the patent claims, that many of the PTAB’s invalidity findings lacked substantial evidence, and that the PTAB Board abused its discretion in denying us the opportunity to file a motion for additional discovery as to the real party-in-interest issues. The underlying inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings are currently pending before the PTAB.

● VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1197-CB) (Appeal of Apple I Case)

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 Judgement. Apple filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on February 21, 2019. On March 12, 2019, the Court invited us to respond to Apple’s petition on or before March 26, 2019. We filed our response on March 22, 2019.

On July 1, 2019 Apple filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding the impact of the USCAFC’s decision in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1751), issued on June 28, 2019 (described below). We filed a response to Apple’s motion and a contingent motion for leave to file a responsive supplemental brief on July 11, 2019. On July 17, 2019, the USCAFC granted both motions and ordered Apple’s and our supplemental briefs filed. On August 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s petition for panel and en banc rehearing. On August 7, 2019, Apple filed a motion to vacate the August 1, 2019 order and for leave to file a second request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc. On October 1, 2019, USCAFC issued an order denying Apple’s motion. Apple subsequently requested an extension for its deadline to petition for a writ of certiorari, and that deadline was extended until December 29, 2019. 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 Writ of Certiorari, on February 20, 2020, Apple filed a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment in the U.S. District Court (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, 6:10-cv-00417) seeking relief from the 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 filed a motion in the USDC seeking to vacate the USDC's final judgment and has indicated that it will seek restitution of the payment if relief is awarded. The USDC has not ruled in this matter.

● VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 17-1591)

On February 7, 2017, we filed appeals with the USCAFC, appealing the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-parties’ reexamination nos. 95/001,788, 95/001,789, and 95/001,856 related to our U.S. Patent Nos. 7,921,211 and 7,418,504. Oral arguments in this case were argued on January 8, 2019.

On August 1, 2019, the USCAFC issued an opinion in this case agreeing with us that the PTAB could not maintain two of those reexaminations (initiated by Apple) with respect to claims as to which there has been a prior “final decision” on patent validity entered by a federal court. The court instructed PTAB to terminate those reexamination proceedings with respect to claims 1-35 of the ‘504 patent and claims 36-59 of the ‘211 patent. The court affirmed PTAB’s invalidity findings with respect to the remaining patent claims. Apple filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on August 26, 2019. We filed a separate request for panel rehearing on September 3, 2019. Our request was denied on September 19, 2019, and Apple’s request was denied on October 11, 2019. All decisions are final in this case.

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1050) (“Apple II Appeal”)

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, 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 initial brief on February 28, 2020. All briefings have been completed. Court’s decision in the matter is awaited.

VirnetX Inc. (USCAFC Case 17-2593)

On September 22, 2017, we filed with the USCAFC appeals of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in IPR2016-00693 and IPR2016-00957 involving our U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211. The briefing in these appeals has not taken place. The entity that initiated the IPRs, Black Swamp IP, LLC, indicated on October 18, 2017, that it would not participate in the appeals. On November 27, 2017, the USPTO indicated that it would intervene in the appeals. On January 19, 2018, the USCAFC stayed these appeals pending the USCAFC’s decision in Case 17-1591. On October 25, 2019, we and the USPTO filed a joint request that the deadline to inform the USCAFC how these appeals should proceed be extended until November 1, 2019. On November 15, 2019, we and the USPTO requested that the USCAFC stay this appeal pending resolution of any petition for rehearing in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140. The USCAFC denied the stay request on November 27, 2019. On January 6, 2020, we filed a motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which was granted on February 27, 2020.

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 18-1751)

On March 30, 2018, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,851 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504. Oral arguments in this case were held on June 4, 2019.

On June 28, 2019, the USCAFC issued its opinion vacating the PTAB’s invalidity findings with respect to claims 5, 12, and 13 and remanding to the PTAB for further proceedings. The court affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity findings with respect to the remaining patent claims. Cisco filed a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en-banc in this matter on August 12, 2019. Cisco’s request was denied on October 1, 2019.

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1043)

On October 1, 2018, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,746 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,839,759. We filed our opening brief on March 15, 2019. Cisco filed its response brief on June 19, 2019. We filed our reply brief on August 14, 2019. Cisco filed a motion to submit a sur-reply brief on August 26, 2019, which we opposed. On September 27, 2019, the USCAFC issued an order deferring resolution of Cisco’s motion for the merits panel. Oral argument was held on January 8, 2020. On January 21, 2020, the USCAFC issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the PTAB’s decision.

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. Our opening brief is currently due on November 12, 2019. 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.

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1725)

On March 29, 2019, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes reexamination no. 95/001,792 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180. We filed a motion to remand on September 10, 2019. We filed a supplemental motion to remand in light of Arthrex on November 22, 2019, which the USCAFC granted on January 24, 2020. Cisco filed a petition for panel and en banc rehearing on February 24, 2020, which remains pending.

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.