Litigation	6 Months Ended
Litigation	Jun. 30, 2023
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 7 — Litigation (all dollar amounts in this section are expressed in thousands except for rates per device) We have several intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“USCAFC”). VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case 6:12-CV-00855-LED) (“Apple II”) This case began on November 6, 2012, when we filed a complaint against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in United States District Court (“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 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers. 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. Apple filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“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 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 USDC’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 USDC denied VirnetX’s motion for entry of a new judgment based on the prior jury verdict and ordered a new jury trial on damages. On August 10, 2020, the USDC granted Apple’s motion for continuance and reset the date to October 26, 2020. On October 30, 2020, a jury returned a $502,800 verdict in favor of VirnetX based on Apple’s infringement of two network security patents: VirnetX US Patents No. 6,502,135 and No. 7,490,151. The jury verdict called for damages of $0.84 per accused device since the 2013 launch of Apple’s iOS 7 operating system and represents 598,629,580 infringing units from US sales only. On January 15, 2021, the USDC denied Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and on February 4, 2021, Apple filed a notice of appeal to the USCAFC. On February 22, 2021, the USCAFC docketed the appeal as Case No. 19-1672. Apple’s opening brief was filed on June 2, 2021. VirnetX filed its responsive brief on July 26, 2021. Apple filed its reply brief on September 13, 2021. Oral arguments were held on September 8, 2022. On March 31, 2023, the USCAFC issued its decision vacating the USDC’s judgement in this matter and remanding it back to the USDC with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. On July 14, 2023 the District Court vacated its prior Final Judgment against Apple dated January 6, 2021 and dismissed the case as moot. On May 1, 2023, VirnetX filed a petition for panel rehearing. On June 27, 2023, the petition for panel rehearing was denied, and the mandate issued on June 30, 2023. The current deadline to file any petition for a writ of certiorari from the USCAFC’s decision is September 25, 2023. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 20-2271) and VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Apple Inc., and Black Swamp, LLC (USCAFC Case 20-2272) On September 15, 2020, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter-partes review proceedings IPR2015-01046 and IPR2016-00062 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, and an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes review proceedings IPR2015-1047, IPR2016-00063, and IPR2016-00167 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151. On September 25, 2020, the USCAFC issued an order consolidating the two appeals. On December 15, 2020, we filed a motion to vacate the PTAB decisions below and to remand these appeals to the PTAB. On March 16, 2021, the USCAFC denied the motion without prejudice to us raising the challenges made in the motion in our opening brief. Our opening brief was filed on June 7, 2021. On June 23, 2021, the USCAFC entered an order directing us (and parties in other appeals that raised Appointments Clause challenges) to file a brief explaining how they believe their cases should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021). On July 7, 2021, we filed a brief in response to the court’s order. Other parties, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) filed their responses on July 21, 2021. On August 19, 2021, USCAFC issued an order remanding these appeals for the limited purpose of allowing VirnetX the opportunity to request rehearing of the PTAB’s final written decisions by the Director of the USPTO. The USCAFC retained jurisdiction over the appeals in the meantime. On September 20, 2021, we filed our requests for Director rehearing with the USPTO. On October 29, 2021, our requests for Director rehearing were denied. We subsequently filed an amended opening brief to the USCAFC on December 10, 2021, the other parties filed response briefs on February 2, 2022, and we filed a reply brief on February 22, 2022. All the briefings have been completed. The oral arguments in this matter were held on September 8, 2022. On March 30, 2023, the USCAFC issued its decision affirming PTAB’s decisions finding certain claims of the ‘135 patent and the ‘151 patent to be unpatentable. On June 5, 2023, VirnetX filed a petition for panel rehearing. On June 22, 2023, the petition for panel rehearing was denied, and the mandate issued on June 29, 2023. The current deadline to file any petition for a writ of certiorari from the USCAFC’s decision is September 20, 2023. VirnetX Inc. v. Hirshfeld (USCAFC Case 17-2593, -2594) On September 22, 2017, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes review proceeding IPR2016-00693 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504, and an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes review proceeding IPR2016-00957 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211. On September 16, 2021, USCAFC issued an order remanding these appeals for the limited purpose of allowing VirnetX the opportunity to request rehearing of the PTAB’s final written decisions by the Director of the USPTO. The USCAFC retained jurisdiction over the appeals in the meantime. On October 18, 2021, we filed our requests for Director rehearing with the USPTO. On January 7, 2022, our requests for Director rehearing were denied. On January 21, 2022, we informed the USCAFC about the denial of Director rehearing and requested that the court dismiss the appeal involving IPR2016-00957 as moot and vacate the PTAB’s underlying decision. On April 4, 2022, the USCAFC vacated the PTAB’s decision in IPR2016-00957 and remanded Appeal No. 17-2594 with instructions to dismiss. In the April 4, 2022 order, the USCAFC further set a briefing schedule, in Appeal No. 17-2593. VirnetX filed its opening brief on September 12, 2022. The USPTO filed its response brief on December 20, 2022. VirnetX filed its reply brief on February 14, 2023. On April 18, 2023, VirnetX filed a motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the disposition of any petition for rehearing in the No. 20-2271, -2272 appeal, and pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of a pending petition for a writ of certiorari in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 22-639. That motion was denied on June 1, 2023, and we currently await scheduling of oral arguments. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 19-1671) On March 18, 2019, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes re-examination proceeding 95/001,679 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135. On October 5, 2021, USCAFC issued an order remanding these appeals for the limited purpose of allowing VirnetX the opportunity to request rehearing of the PTAB’s final written decisions by the Director of the PTO. The USCAFC retained jurisdiction over the appeals in the meantime. Our request for Director rehearing with the PTO was filed on November 5, 2021. On January 10, 2022, our request for Director rehearing was denied. We informed the USCAFC about the denial of Director rehearing. VirnetX’s opening brief was filed on June 23, 2022. The USPTO’s response brief was filed on August 2, 2022, and Cisco’s response brief was filed on September 2, 2022. VirnetX filed its reply brief on October 7, 2022. On April 18, 2023, VirnetX filed a motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the disposition of any petition for rehearing in the No. 20-2271, -2272 appeal, and pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of a pending petition for a writ of certiorari in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 22-639. That motion was denied on June 1, 2023, and we currently await scheduling of oral arguments. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 22-1523) (“Apple Reexam I”) On March 10, 2022, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes re-examination proceeding 95/001,682 involving our U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135. Our opening brief was filed on August 22, 2022. Apple and USPTO each filed a response brief on December 28, 2022. VirnetX filed its reply brief on February 8, 2023. On April 18, 2023, VirnetX filed a motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the disposition of any petition for rehearing in the No. 20-2271, -2272 appeal, and pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of a pending petition for a writ of certiorari in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 22-639. That motion was denied on June 1, 2023, and we currently await scheduling of oral arguments. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (USCAFC Case 22-1997) (“Apple Reexam II”) On July 6, 2022, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes re-examination proceeding 95/001,697 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151. On October 17, 2022, we filed a motion to remand the appeal in light of the PTAB’s refusal to permit Director rehearing. On January 23, 2023, the USCAFC denied that motion without prejudice to the parties raising their arguments in the merits briefs. VirnetX opening brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and Apple and the USPTO each filed a response brief on July 24, 2023. VirnetX reply brief is currently due on August 14, 2023. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 22-2234) On September 16, 2022, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes re-examination proceeding 95/001,851 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504. We filed our opening brief on February 28, 2023. Cisco’s response brief was filed on May 10, 2023, and VirnetX reply brief was filed on June 21, 2023. We currently await scheduling of oral arguments. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (USCAFC Case 23-1765) On April 7, 2023, we filed with the USCAFC an appeal of the invalidity findings by the PTAB in inter-partes re-examination proceeding 95/001,714 involving our U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151. The certified list is due to be filed by the USPTO by May 30, 2023, and our opening brief will be due 60 days thereafter. In addition, on April 21, 2023, Cisco filed a cross-appeal. Cisco’s response brief was filed on May 10, 2023. VirnetX opening brief is currently due on September 29, 2023. Other Legal Matters 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.