VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 75

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Aastra Technologies Ltd., Aastra USA, Inc., Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, filed by VirnetX Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Cawley, Douglas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
VirnetX Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
Apple Inc.,
Aastra USA, Inc.,
Aastra Technologies Ltd.,
NEC Corporation, and
NEC Corporation of America,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-417

PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) files this First Amended Complaint against Defendants
Aastra USA, Inc., Aastra Technologies Ltd., Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., NEC Corporation,
and NEC Corporation of America (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement under 35
U.S.C. § 271 and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following:
THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff VirnetX is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business at 5615 Scotts Valley Drive,
Suite 110 Scotts Valley, California.
2.

Defendant Aastra Technologies Ltd. is a Canadian corporation with its principal

place of business at 155 Snow Blvd., Concord, Ontario Canada, L4K 4N9. Defendant Aastra
USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2811 Internet Blvd.,
Frisco, TX 75034. Aastra Technologies Ltd. and Aastra USA, Inc. are collectively referred to
as “Aastra.” On information and belief, Aastra regularly conducts and transacts business in

Dallas 297838v1

Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, and as set forth
below, has committed and continues to commit, tortious acts of patent infringement within and
outside of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas.
3.

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a California corporation with its principal

place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. On information and belief,
Apple regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and
within the Eastern District of Texas, and as set forth below, has committed and continues to
commit, tortious acts of patent infringement within and outside of Texas and within the Eastern
District of Texas.
4.

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) is a California corporation with its

principal place of business at 170 West Tasman Dr., San Jose, CA 95134. On information and
belief, Cisco regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States,
and within the Eastern District of Texas, and as set forth below, has committed and continues
to commit, tortious acts of patent infringement within and outside of Texas and within the
Eastern District of Texas.
5.

Defendant NEC Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of

business at 5-7-1 Shiba, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8001. Defendant NEC Corporation of America
is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business at 6535 N. State Highway 161,
Irving, Texas 75039. NEC Corporation and NEC Corporation of America are collectively
referred to as “NEC.” On information and belief, NEC regularly conducts and transacts
business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, and
as set forth below, has committed and continues to commit, tortious acts of patent infringement
within and outside of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas.

Dallas 316935v3

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.

This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35, United States Code.

This Court has exclusive subject matter

jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
7.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and

1400(b).
8.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

Defendants have

conducted and do conduct business within the State of Texas. Defendants, directly or through
subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes,
offers for sale, sells, and advertises (including the provision of an interactive web page) its
products and/or services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of
Texas. Defendants, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors,
retailers, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing
products and/or services, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation
that they will be purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. These
infringing products and/or services have been and continue to be purchased and used by
consumers in the Eastern District of Texas.

Defendants have committed acts of patent

infringement within the State of Texas and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of
Texas.
ASSERTED PATENTS
9.

On December 31, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,502,135 (“the ’135 patent”)

entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System
Availability” was duly and legally issued with Edmund Colby Munger, Douglas Charles

Dallas 316935v3

3

Schmidt, Robert Dunham Short, III, Victor Larson, Michael Williamson as the named
inventors after full and fair examination. VirnetX is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
and to the ’135 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ’135 patent. A copy of the
’135 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
10.

On January 4, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,839,759 (“the ’759 patent”)

entitled “Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual
Private Network Without User Entering Any Cryptographic Information” was duly and legally
issued with Victor Larson, Robert Dunham Short, III, Edmund Colby Munger, and Michael
Williamson as the named inventors after full and fair examination. VirnetX is the owner of all
rights, title, and interest in and to the ’759 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the
’759 patent. A copy of the ’759 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
11.

On March 6, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,188,180 (“the ’180 patent”)

entitled “Method for Establishing Secure Communication Link Between Computers of Virtual
Private Network” was duly and legally issued with Victor Larson, Robert Dunham Short, III,
Edmund Colby Munger, and Michael Williamson as the named inventors after full and fair
examination. VirnetX is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’180 patent and
possesses all rights of recovery under the ’180 patent. A copy of the ’180 patent is attached as
Exhibit C.
12.

On August 26, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,418,504 (“the ’504 patent”)

entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names”
was duly and legally issued with Victor Larson, Robert Dunham Short, III, Edmund Colby
Munger, and Michael Williamson as the named inventors after full and fair examination.

Dallas 316935v3

4

VirnetX is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’504 patent and possesses all
rights of recovery under the ’504 patent. A copy of the ’504 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
13.

On February 10, 2009, United States Patent No. 7,490,151 (“the ’151 patent”)

entitled “Establishment of a Secure Communication Link Based on a Domain Name Service
(DNS) Request” was duly and legally issued with Edmund Colby Munger, Robert Dunham
Short, III, Victor Larson, and Michael Williamson as the named inventors after full and fair
examination. VirnetX is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’151 patent and
possesses all rights of recovery under the ’151 patent. A copy of the ’151 patent is attached as
Exhibit E.
COUNT ONE
PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY AASTRA
14.

VirnetX incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.

As described below, Aastra has infringed and/or continues to infringe the ’135 and ‘504
patents.
15.

At least Aastra’s Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform, 800 server, 5000

server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i telephone, 6731i
telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i) telephone, 6757i CT (57i
CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M) Expansion Module, 9143i
telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone infringe at least system claims 10 and 12
of the ’135 patent. Aastra makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or
distributes within and from the United States these products and thus directly infringes at least
claims 10, 12, and 13 of the ’135 patent.

Dallas 316935v3

5

16.

The use of at least Aastra’s Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform, 800 server,

5000 server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i telephone, 6731i
telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i) telephone, 6757i CT (57i
CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M) Expansion Module, 9143i
telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone as intended by Aastra infringes at least
method claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 of the ’135 patent. Aastra uses these products and thus directly
infringes at least claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 of the ’135 patent.
17.

In addition, Aastra provides at least its Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform,

800 server, 5000 server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i
telephone, 6731i telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i)
telephone, 6757i CT (57i CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M)
Expansion Module, 9143i telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone to resellers,
consultants, and end-user customers in the United States who, in turn, use these products to
infringe at least claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 of the ’135 patent.
18.

Aastra indirectly infringes the ‘135 patent by inducing infringement by resellers,

consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Aastra
actively induces infringement of the ‘135 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user
customers.
19.

Aastra indirectly infringes the ‘135 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
Aastra offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be

Dallas 316935v3

6

especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
20.

At least Aastra’s Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform, 800 server, 5000

server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i telephone, 6731i
telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i) telephone, 6757i CT (57i
CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M) Expansion Module, 9143i
telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone infringe at least system claims, 1, 2, 5, 1417, 19-23, and 26-35 of the ‘504 patent. Aastra makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports,
imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the United States these products and thus
directly infringes at least claims, 1, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19-23, and 26-35 of the ‘504 patent.
21.

At least Aastra’s Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform, 800 server, 5000

server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i telephone, 6731i
telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i) telephone, 6757i CT (57i
CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M) Expansion Module, 9143i
telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone, well as Aastra’s servers, master discs,
and other media that store, cache, or distribute Aastra’s software, infringe at least computer
readable media claims 36, 38-41, 43-47, 50-59 of the ‘504 patent. Aastra makes, uses, sells,
offers for sale, imports, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the
United States these products and media and thus directly infringes at least claims 36, 38-41,
43-47, 50-59 of the ‘504 patent.
22.

The use of at least Aastra’s Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform, 800 server,

5000 server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i telephone, 6731i
telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i) telephone, 6757i CT (57i

Dallas 316935v3

7

CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M) Expansion Module, 9143i
telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone as intended by Aastra infringes at least
method claim 60 of the ‘504 patent. Aastra uses these products and thus directly infringes at
least claim 60 of the ‘504 patent.
23.

In addition, Aastra provides at least its Clearspan platform, Pointspan platform,

800 server, 5000 server, 6725ip telephone, 6721ip telephone, 6739i telephone, 6730i
telephone, 6731i telephone, 6753i (53i) telephone, 6755i (55i) telephone, 6757i (57i)
telephone, 6757i CT (57i CT) telephone, M670i (536M) Expansion Module, M675i (560M)
Expansion Module, 9143i telephone, 9480i telephone, and 9480i CT telephone to resellers,
consultants, and end-user customers in the United States who, in turn, use these products to
infringe at least claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19-23, 26-36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-60 of the ‘504
patent.
24.

Aastra indirectly infringes the ‘504 patent by inducing infringement by resellers,

consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Aastra
actively induces infringement of the ‘504 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user
customers.
25.

Aastra indirectly infringes the ‘504 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
Aastra offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.

Dallas 316935v3

8

26.

Aastra has infringed and/or continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘135

and ‘504 patents as set forth above. Aastra is liable for direct infringement, as well as indirect
infringement by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, for the ‘135 and ‘504
patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), and/or (f) as set forth above. For VirnetX’s
claims of indirect infringement, Aastra’s resellers, consultants, and end-user customers are
direct infringers of the ‘135 and ‘504 patents.
27.

Aastra’s acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX. VirnetX is

entitled to recover from Aastra the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of Aastra’s
wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and
practices of Aastra has caused, is causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by
the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is
no adequate remedy at law, and for which VirnetX is entitled to injunctive relief under 35
U.S.C. § 283.
28.

Aastra has received actual notice of infringement by virtue of the filing of this

lawsuit. Aastra has also received constructive notice, as VirnetX has complied with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
COUNT TWO
PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY APPLE
29.

VirnetX incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.

As described below, Apple has infringed and/or continues to infringe the ’135, ’151, and ‘504
patents.
30.

At least Apple’s iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and

iPad, when configured and operating in a system as specified by Apple, infringe at least system

Dallas 316935v3

9

claims 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent. Apple makes and/or uses these systems and thus directly
infringes at least claims 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent.
31.

The use of Apple’s iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and

iPad as intended by Apple infringes at least method claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the ’135 patent.
Apple uses these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the ’135
patent.
32.

In addition, Apple provides at least its iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone

4, iPod Touch, and iPad to others, such as resellers and end-user customers, in the United
States who, in turn, use these products to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the
’135 patent.
33.

Apple indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by others, such as resellers

and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Apple actively
induces infringement of the ’135 patent by others, such as resellers and end-user customers.
34.

Apple indirectly infringes the ’135 patent by contributing to infringement by

others, such as resellers and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c),
because Apple offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented
machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in
practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to
be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
35.

Apple’s iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and iPad

infringe at least apparatus claims 1 and 6 of the ’151 patent.

Dallas 316935v3

10

Apple makes, uses, sells, offers

for sale, imports, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the United
States these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1 and 6 of the ’151 patent.
36.

At least Apple’s iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and

iPad, as well as Apple’s servers, master discs, and other media that store, cache, or distribute
iPhone OS, infringe at least computer readable media claims 7, 12, and 13 of the ’151 patent.
Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes
within and from the United States these products and media and thus directly infringes at least
claims 7, 12 and 13 of the ’151 patent.
37.

In addition, Apple provides at least its iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone

4, iPod Touch, and iPad and media that store, cache, or distribute iPhone OS to others, such as
resellers and end-user customers, in the United States who, in turn, use these products to
infringe at least claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 of the ’151 patent.
38.

Apple indirectly infringes the ‘151 patent by inducing infringement by others,

such as resellers and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because
Apple actively induces infringement of the ’151 patent by others, such as resellers and end-user
customers.
39.

Apple indirectly infringes the ’151 patent by contributing to infringement by

others, such as resellers and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c),
because Apple offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented
machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in
practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to
be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.

Dallas 316935v3

11

40.

At least Apple’s servers and other Apple computers that support the FaceTime

functionality, when configured and operating in a system as specified by Apple, and Apple’s
iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and Apple computers running Apple’s FaceTime for Mac application,
infringe at least system claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14-23, 26-28, and 33-35 of the ‘504 patent. Apple
makes and/or uses these systems and thus directly infringes at least claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14-23, 2628, and 33-35 of the ’504 patent.
41.

At least Apple’s servers and other Apple computers that support the FaceTime

functionality, as well as Apple’s servers, master discs, and other media that store, cache, or
distribute iPhone OS, when configured and operating in a system as specified by Apple, and
Apple’s iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and Apple computers running Apple’s FaceTime for Mac
application, infringe at least machine readable medium claims 36-47, 49-52, and 57-59 of the
’504 patent. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, imports, supplies,
and/or distributes within and from the United States these products and media and thus directly
infringes at least claims 36-47, 50-52, and 57-59 of the ‘504 patent.
42.

The use of at least Apple’s servers and other Apple computers that support the

FaceTime functionality, when configured and operating in a system as specified by Apple, and
Apple’s iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and Apple computers running Apple’s FaceTime for Mac
application, as intended by Apple infringes at least method claim 60 of the ’504 patent. Apple
uses these products and thus directly infringes at least claim 60 of the ‘504 patent.
43.

In addition, Apple provides at least its iPhone 4, iPod Touch, Apple computers

running Apple’s FaceTime for Mac application, and media that store, cache, or distribute
iPhone OS to others, such as resellers and end-user customers, in the United States who, in

Dallas 316935v3

12

turn, use these products to infringe at least claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14-23, 26-28, 33-47, 50-52, and
57-60 of the ‘504 patent.
44.

Apple indirectly infringes the ‘504 patent by inducing infringement by others,

such as resellers and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because
Apple actively induces infringement of the ’504 patent by others, such as resellers and end-user
customers.
45.

Apple indirectly infringes the ’504 patent by contributing to infringement by

others, such as resellers and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c),
because Apple offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented
machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in
practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to
be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
46.

Apple has infringed and/or continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’135,

’151, and ‘504 patents as set forth above. Apple is liable for direct infringement, as well as
indirect infringement by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, for the ’135,
’151, and ‘504 patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), and/or (f) as set forth above.
For VirnetX’s claims of indirect infringement, Apple’s resellers, consultants, and end-user
customers are direct infringers of the ’135, ’151, and ‘504 patents.
47.

Apple’s acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX.

VirnetX is

entitled to recover from Apple the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of Apple’s
wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and
practices of Apple have caused, are causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by

Dallas 316935v3

13

the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is
no adequate remedy at law, and for which VirnetX is entitled to injunctive relief under 35
U.S.C. § 283.
48.
lawsuit.

Apple has received actual notice of infringement by virtue of the filing of this

Apple has also received constructive notice, as VirnetX has complied with the

requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
COUNT THREE
PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY CISCO
49.

VirnetX incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-48 as if fully set forth herein.

As described below, Cisco has infringed and/or continues to infringe the ’135, ’759, ’180, and
’504 patents.
50.

At least Cisco’s 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series IP Phones, IP

Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence Systems,
Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business Edition,
Unified Communications Manager Express, Unified Communications Manager (including
certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security
Appliances, SPA 301, 303, 501G, 502G, 504G, 508G, 509G, 525G/525G2, SPA962, SPA942,
SPA941, SPA932, SPA922, SPA921, and SPA901 IP Phones, Unified Border Element,
Unified SIP Proxy, 2600, 2800, 3700, and 3800 Series Integrated Services Routers, and SIP
Proxy Server infringe at least system claims 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent. Cisco makes, uses,
sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the United
States these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent.

Dallas 316935v3

14

51.

The use of at least Cisco’s 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series IP Phones,

IP Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence Systems,
Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business Edition,
Unified Communications Manager Express, Unified Communications Manager (including
certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security
Appliances, SPA 301, 303, 501G, 502G, 504G, 508G, 509G, 525G/525G2, SPA962, SPA942,
SPA941, SPA932, SPA922, SPA921, and SPA901 IP Phones, Unified Border Element,
Unified SIP Proxy, 2600, 2800, 3700, and 3800 Series Integrated Services Routers, SIP Proxy
Server, 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2900, and 3900 Series Integrated Services Routers, 7200
Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers, 7200VXR Routers, 7600 Series
Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, 7825, 7828, 7835 and 7845 Media Convergence
Servers, Intercompany Media Engine software, and certain Cisco IOS software as intended by
Cisco infringes at least method claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 13 of the ’135 patent. Cisco uses these
products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 13 of the ’135 patent.
52.

In addition, Cisco provides at least its 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series

IP Phones, IP Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence
Systems, Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business
Edition, Unified Communications Manager Express, Unified Communications Manager
(including certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), ASA 5500 Series
Adaptive Security Appliances, SPA 301, 303, 501G, 502G, 504G, 508G, 509G, 525G/525G2,
SPA962, SPA942, SPA941, SPA932, SPA922, SPA921, and SPA901 IP Phones, Unified
Border Element, Unified SIP Proxy, 2600, 2800, 3700, and 3800 Series Integrated Services
Routers, SIP Proxy Server, 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2900, and 3900 Series Integrated

Dallas 316935v3

15

Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers, 7200VXR
Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, 7825, 7828, 7835 and 7845
Media Convergence Servers, Intercompany Media Engine software, and certain Cisco IOS
software to resellers, consultants, and end-user customers in the United States who, in turn, use
these products to infringe claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 of the ’135 patent.
53.

Cisco indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by resellers, consultants,

and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Cisco actively
induces infringement of the ’135 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user customers.
54.

Cisco indirectly infringes the ’135 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
Cisco offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
55.

At least Cisco’s 800, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2800 and 2900 Series Integrated

Services Routers, ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security Appliances, 3700, 3800 and 3900 Series
Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, UBR900, Catalyst 6500 Series
Switches, ASR 1000 Series Routers, certain PIX Security Appliances, AnyConnect VPN
Client, Easy VPN Remote, Easy VPN Server, and Easy VPN Client, as well as Cisco’s servers,
master discs, and other media that store, cache, or distribute Cisco’s software, infringe at least
computer readable media claims 16-17 and 23-29 of the ’759 patent. Cisco makes, uses, sells,
offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the United States

Dallas 316935v3

16

these products and media and thus directly infringes at least claims 16-17 and 23-29 of the
’759 patent.
56.

The use of at least Cisco’s 800, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2800 and 2900 Series

Integrated Services Routers, ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security Appliances, 3700, 3800 and
3900 Series Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, UBR900, Catalyst
6500 Series Switches, ASR 1000 Series Routers, certain PIX Security Appliances,
AnyConnect VPN Client, Easy VPN Remote, Easy VPN Server, and Easy VPN Client as
intended by Cisco infringes at least method claims 1-2 and 8-14 of the ’759 patent. Cisco uses
these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1-2 and 8-14 of the ’759 patent.
57.

In addition, Cisco provides at least its 800, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2800 and 2900

Series Integrated Services Routers, ASA 5500 Series Adaptive Security Appliances, 3700,
3800 and 3900 Series Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers,
UBR900, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, ASR 1000 Series Routers, certain PIX Security
Appliances, AnyConnect VPN Client, Easy VPN Remote, Easy VPN Server, Easy VPN Client,
and media that store, cache, or distribute Cisco’s software to resellers, consultants, and enduser customers in the United States who, in turn, use these products to infringe claims 1-2, 814, 16-17 and 23-29 of the ’759 patent.
58.

Cisco indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by resellers, consultants,

and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Cisco actively
induces infringement of the ’759 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user customers.
59.

Cisco indirectly infringes the ’759 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
Cisco offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,

Dallas 316935v3

17

manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
60.

At least Cisco’s 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2800, 2900, 3800 and 3900 Series

Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers,
7200VXR Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, 7825, 7828, 7835 and
7845 Media Convergence Servers, Intercompany Media Engine software, and certain Cisco
IOS software infringe at least system claims 33 and 35 of the ’180 patent. Cisco makes, uses,
sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the United
States these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 33 and 35 of the ’180 patent.
61.

At least Cisco’s 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2800, 2900, 3800 and 3900 Series

Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers,
7200VXR Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, 7825, 7828, 7835 and
7845 Media Convergence Servers, Intercompany Media Engine software, and certain Cisco
IOS software, as well as Cisco’s servers, master discs, and other media that store, cache, or
distribute Cisco’s software, infringe at least computer readable media claims 17, 20, 26, 28, 30
of the ’180 patent. Cisco makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or
distributes within and from the United States these products and media and thus directly
infringes at least claims 17, 20, 26, 28, 30 of the ’180 patent.
62.

The use of at least Cisco’s 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2800, 2900, 3800 and

3900 Series Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series
Routers, 7200VXR Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, 7825, 7828,

Dallas 316935v3

18

7835 and 7845 Media Convergence Servers, Intercompany Media Engine software, and certain
Cisco IOS software, as intended by Cisco infringes at least method claims 1, 4, 10, 12, and 14
of the ’180 patent. Cisco uses these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1, 4, 10,
12, and 14 of the ’180 patent.
63.

In addition, Cisco provides at least its 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2800, 2900,

3800 and 3900 Series Integrated Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR
1000 Series Routers, 7200VXR Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches,
7825, 7828, 7835 and 7845 Media Convergence Servers, Intercompany Media Engine
software, certain Cisco IOS software, and media that store, cache, or distribute Cisco’s
software to resellers, consultants, and end-user customers in the United States who, in turn, use
these products to infringe at least claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 35 of the
’180.
64.

Cisco indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by resellers, consultants,

and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Cisco actively
induces infringement of the ’180 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user customers.
65.

Cisco indirectly infringes the ’180 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
Cisco offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.

Dallas 316935v3

19

66.

At least Cisco’s 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series IP Phones, IP

Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence Systems,
Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business Edition,
Unified Communications Manager Express, and Unified Communications Manager (including
certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), 2600, 2800, 3700, and 3800 Series
Integrated Services Routers, 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2900, and 3900 Series Integrated
Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers, 7200VXR
Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, and certain Cisco IOS software,
infringe at least system claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14-17, 19-23, and 26-35 of the ’504 patent. Cisco
makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from
the United States these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14-17,
19-23, and 26-35 of the ’504 patent.
67.

At least Cisco’s 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series IP Phones, IP

Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence Systems,
Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business Edition,
Unified Communications Manager Express, and Unified Communications Manager (including
certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), 2600, 2800, 3700, and 3800 Series
Integrated Services Routers, 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2900, and 3900 Series Integrated
Services Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers, 7200VXR
Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, and certain Cisco IOS software,
as well as Cisco’s servers, master discs, and other media that store, cache, or distribute Cisco’s
software, infringe at least computer readable media claims 36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-59 of the
’504 patent.

Dallas 316935v3

Cisco makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or

20

distributes within and from the United States these products and media and thus directly
infringes at least claims 36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-59 of the ’504 patent.
68.

The use of at least Cisco’s 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series IP Phones,

IP Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence Systems,
Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business Edition,
Unified Communications Manager Express, and Unified Communications Manager (including
certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), 2600, 2800, 3700, and 3800 Series
Integrated Services Routers, 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2900, and 3900 Series Integrated
Service Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers, 7200VXR
Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, and certain Cisco IOS software,
as intended by Cisco infringes at least method claim 60 of the ’504 patent. Cisco uses these
products and thus directly infringes at least claim 60 of the ’504 patent.
69.

In addition, Cisco provides at least its 3900, 6900, 7900, 8900, and 9900 Series

IP Phones, IP Communicator, Cius, 3200, 3000, 1300, 1100, 1000 and 500 Series TelePresence
Systems, Cisco TelePresence Multipoint Switch, Unified Communications Manager Business
Edition, Unified Communications Manager Express, Unified Communications Manager
(including certain versions formerly known as Unified CallManager), 2600, 2800, 3700, and
3800 Series Integrated Services Routers, 870, 880, 890, 1800, 1900, 2900, and 3900 Series
Integrated Service Routers, 7200 Series Routers, 7301 Routers, ASR 1000 Series Routers,
7200VXR Routers, 7600 Series Routers, Catalyst 6500 Series Switches, and certain Cisco IOS
software, and media that store, cache, or distribute Cisco’s software to resellers, consultants,
and end-user customers in the United States who, in turn, use these products to infringe at least
claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19-23, 26-36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-60 of the ’504 patent.

Dallas 316935v3

21

70.

Cisco indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by resellers, consultants,

and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because Cisco actively
induces infringement of the ’504 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user customers.
71.

Cisco indirectly infringes the ’504 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
Cisco offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
72.

Cisco has infringed and/or continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’135,

’759, ’180, and ’504 patents as set forth above. Cisco is liable for direct infringement, as well
as indirect infringement by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, for the ’135,
’759, ’180, and ’504 patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), and/or (f) as set forth
above. For VirnetX’s claims of indirect infringement, Cisco’s resellers, consultants, and enduser customers are direct infringers of the ’135, ’759, ’180, and ’504 patents.
73.

Cisco’s acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX.

VirnetX is

entitled to recover from Cisco the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of Cisco’s
wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and
practices of Cisco has caused, is causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by
the Court, will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is
no adequate remedy at law, and for which VirnetX is entitled to injunctive relief under 35
U.S.C. § 283.

Dallas 316935v3

22

74.

Cisco has received actual notice of infringement prior to an by virtue of the

filing of this lawsuit. Cisco has also received constructive notice, as VirnetX has complied
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
75.

Cisco has willfully infringed and/or does willfully infringe the ’135, ’759, ’180

and ’504 patents.
COUNT FOUR
PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY NEC
76.

VirnetX incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-75 as if fully set forth herein.

As described below, NEC has infringed and/or continues to infringe the ’135 and ’504 patents.
77.

At least NEC’s SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100 Communications

Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server, NEC DT710 IP
Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, and SP30 Softphone
infringe at least system claims 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent. NEC makes, uses, sells, offers for
sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from the United States these
products and thus directly infringes at least claims 10 and 12 of the ’135 patent.
78.

The use of at least NEC’s SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100

Communications Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server,
NEC DT710 IP Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, and
SP30 Softphone as intended by NEC infringes at least method claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 13 of the
’135 patent. NEC uses these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1-5, 7, 9, and
13 of the ’135 patent.
79.

In addition, NEC provides at least its SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100

Communications Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server,

Dallas 316935v3

23

NEC DT710 IP Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, and
SP30 Softphone to NEC resellers, consultants, and end-user customers in the United States
who, in turn, use these products to infringe at least claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 of the ’135
patent.
80.

NEC indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by resellers, consultants, and

end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because NEC actively induces
infringement of the ’135 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user customers.
81.

NEC indirectly infringes the ’135 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
NEC offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,
manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
82.

At least NEC’s SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100 Communications

Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server, NEC DT710 IP
Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, and SP30 Softphone
infringe at least system claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19-23, and 26-35 of the ’504 patent. NEC
makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or distributes within and from
the United States these products and thus directly infringes at least claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 1923, and 26-35 of the ’504 patent.
83.

At least NEC’s SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100 Communications

Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server, NEC DT710 IP

Dallas 316935v3

24

Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, and SP30 Softphone, as
well as NEC’s servers, master discs, and other media that store, cache, or distribute NEC’s
software, infringe at least computer readable media claims 36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-59 of the
’504 patent.

NEC makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, imports, supplies, and/or

distributes within and from the United States these products and media and thus directly
infringes at least claims 36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-59 of the ’504 patent.
84.

The use of at least NEC’s SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100

Communications Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server,
NEC DT710 IP Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, and
SP30 Softphone as intended by NEC infringes at least method claim 60 of the ’504 patent.
NEC uses these products and thus directly infringes at least claim 60 of the ’504 patent.
85.

In addition, NEC provides at least its SV7000 Communications Server, SV8100

Communications Server, SV8300 Communications Server, SV8500 Communications Server,
NEC DT710 IP Terminal, DT730 IP Terminal, DT750 IP Terminal, SP350 Softphone, SP30
Softphone, and media that store, cache, or distribute NEC’s software to resellers, consultants,
and end-user customers in the United States who, in turn, use these products to infringe at least
claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19-23, 26-36, 38-41, 43-47, and 50-60 of the ’504 patent.
86.

NEC indirectly infringes by inducing infringement by resellers, consultants, and

end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), because NEC actively induces
infringement of the ’504 patent by resellers, consultants, and end-user customers.
87.

NEC indirectly infringes the ’504 patent by contributing to infringement by

resellers, consultants, and end-user customers, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), because
NEC offers to sell or sells within the United States a component of a patented machine,

Dallas 316935v3

25

manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be
especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
88.

NEC has infringed and/or continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’135

and ’504 patents as set forth above. NEC is liable for direct infringement, as well as indirect
infringement by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, for the ’135 and ’504
patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), and/or (f) as set forth above. For VirnetX’s
claims of indirect infringement, NEC’s resellers, consultants, and end-user customers are direct
infringers of the ’135 and ’504 patents.
89.

NEC’s acts of infringement have caused damage to VirnetX. VirnetX is entitled

to recover from NEC the damages sustained by VirnetX as a result of NEC’s wrongful acts in
an amount subject to proof at trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of NEC has
caused, is causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue
to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VirnetX for which there is no adequate remedy at
law, and for which VirnetX is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
90.
lawsuit.

NEC has received actual notice of infringement by virtue of the filing of this

NEC has also received constructive notice, as VirnetX has complied with the

requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
VirnetX hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, VirnetX prays for the following relief:

Dallas 316935v3

26

1.

A judgment that Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and NEC have directly infringed the ’135

patent, contributorily infringed the ’135 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’135
patent;
2.

A judgment that Cisco has directly infringed the ’759 patent, contributorily

infringed the ’759 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’759 patent;
3.

A judgment that Cisco has directly infringed the ’180 patent, contributorily

infringed the ’180 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’180 patent;
4.

A judgment that Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and NEC have directly infringed the ’504

patent, contributorily infringed the ’504 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’504
patent;
5.

A judgment that Apple has directly infringed the ’151 patent, contributorily

infringed the ’151 patent, and/or induced the infringement of the ’151 patent;
6.

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and

NEC and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees,
successors, and assigns, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from
directly infringing, contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’135
patent;
7.

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Cisco and its respective

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns,
and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’759 patent;
8.

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Cisco and its respective

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns,

Dallas 316935v3

27

and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’180 patent;
9.

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and

NEC and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees,
successors, and assigns, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from
directly infringing, contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’504
patent;
10.

A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Apple and its respective

officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns,
and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from directly infringing,
contributorily infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of the ’151 patent;
11.

A judgment that Cisco’s infringement of the ’135, ’759, ’180 and ’504 patents

has been willful;
12.

This case be found an exceptional case, entitling VirnetX to attorneys’ fees

incurred in prosecuting this action;
13.

A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VirnetX damages under 35

U.S.C. § 284, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up
until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and treble damages for willful
infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
14.

A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VirnetX the costs of this

action (including all disbursements);
15.

A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VirnetX pre-judgment and

post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;

Dallas 316935v3

28

16.

A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction

preventing future acts of infringement is not granted, that VirnetX be awarded a compulsory
ongoing licensing fee; and
17.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: February 4, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Douglas A. Cawley
Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
E-mail: [e-mail]
Luke F. McLeroy
Texas State Bar No. 24041455
E-mail: [e-mail]
Bradley W. Caldwell
Texas State Bar No. 24040630
E-mail: [e-mail]
Jason D. Cassady
Texas State Bar No. 24045625
E-mail: [e-mail]
Stacie L. Greskowiak
Texas State Bar No. 24074311
E-mail: [e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Sam F. Baxter
Texas State Bar No. 01938000
E-mail: [e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
104 East Houston, Suite 300
Marshall, Texas 75670
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Robert M. Parker

Dallas 316935v3

29

Texas State Bar No. 15498000
[e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt
Texas State Bar No. 00787165
[e-mail]
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 East Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
VIRNETX INC.

Dallas 316935v3

30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
have consented to electronic service on this, the 4th day of February, 2011. Local Rule CV53(a)(3)(A).

/s/ Stacie Lynn Greskowiak
Stacie Lynn Greskowiak

Dallas 316935v3

31