Federal Circuit Vacates Damages Award For Failing to Apportion Damages to Patented Features

Sep 22, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

On September 16, 2014, the Federal Circuit vacated a $368 million damages award against Apple because the underlying damages model was based on the entire price of Apple products instead of being limited to the infringing features of the devices. The court held that damages experts must ensure that damages theories are based on the value of the infringing features and exclude the value of all other features from their estimates. Plaintiff VirnetX sued Apple in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Apple’s FaceTime video­calling feature and VPN On Demand secure web connection feature infringed its patents. A jury found that the features infringed four patents and awarded VirnetX $368 million in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that the VPN On Demand feature infringed, remanded the infringement finding regarding the FaceTime feature, and vacated the damages award. Plaintiff’s damages expert based his damages model on the entire price of the devices, arguing that the devices themselves were the smallest salable unit that practice the patents. The Federal Circuit rejected this approach, holding “A patentee’s obligation to apportion damages only to the patented features does not end with the identification of the smallest salable unit if that unit still contains significant unpatented features.”

Apple, Inc. v VirnetX, Inc. et al, U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 2013­1489.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.