Virnetx Inc., Leidos, Inc., Fka Science Applications International Corporation v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VIRNETX INC., LEIDOS, INC., FKA SCIENCE
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellant
______________________
2021-1672
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:12-cv-00855-RWS, Judge
Robert Schroeder, III.
______________________
Decided: March 31, 2023
______________________
J EFFREY A. L AMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appellees. Plaintiff-appellee
VirnetX Inc. also represented by RAYINER HASHEM , L UCAS
M. WALKER ; BRADLEY WAYNE CALDWELL , J ASON D ODD
CASSADY , J OHN AUSTIN CURRY , Caldwell Cassady & Curry,
Dallas, TX.
D ONALD SANTOS U RRABAZO, Urrabazo Law, P.C., Los
Case: 21-1672 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 03/31/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE INC. 2
Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee Leidos, Inc. Also repre-
sented by ANDY T INDEL , Mann, Tindel & Thompson, Tyler,
TX.
WILLIAM F. L EE , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant.
Also represented by MARK CHRISTOPHER F LEMING, L AUREN
B. F LETCHER ; BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, STEVEN J ARED
HORN, Washington, DC; T HOMAS G REGORY SPRANKLING,
Palo Alto, CA.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
We previously affirmed that Apple’s VPN On Demand
feature infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 and
7,490,151. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 792 F. App’x 796, 813
(Fed. Cir. 2019). We remanded for further proceedings on
damages. Id. Apple appealed the resulting damages
award.
In the meantime, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
found both patents unpatentable. We have now affirmed
that decision. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master
Fund, Nos. 20-2271, 20-2272 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2023).
The parties in this case agreed that if we affirmed the
Board’s finding of unpatentability, then the Patent and
Trademark Office would be obligated to cancel the claims
of both patents and, therefore, VirnetX would no longer
have a legally cognizable cause of action against Apple. See
Oral Argument at 13:42-13:45, available at
https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/de-
fault.aspx?fl=21-1672_09082022.mp3 (VirnetX agreeing
that in this eventuality it would be appropriate to “remand
for dismissal because we’ve lost our cause of action”); Reply
Br. 2. Now that we have affirmed the Board’s finding of
Case: 21-1672 Document: 75 Page: 2 Filed: 03/31/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE INC. 3
unpatentability, VirnetX has lost its cause of action, and
its dispute with Apple is moot. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v.
Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment
and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs shall be assessed against Appellant.
Case: 21-1672 Document: 75 Page: 3 Filed: 03/31/2023

-- 3 of 3 --