1. “Whether the infringement judgment for the ’135 and ’151 patents should be reversed or vacated because: (a) redesigned VPN On Demand does not ‘automatically initiate’ a VPN based on a determination that the DNS request is for a secure server, as the claims require; and (b) VirnetX failed to prove any act of direct infringement through configuration and use of the optional HTTPS probe, or that Apple induced such action.” 2. “Whether the infringement judgment for the ’504 and ’211 patents should be reversed or vacated because: (a) the district court incorrectly instructed the jury that the claimed ‘DNS system’ does not include a ‘DNS’ as the court construed it, and the correct construction forecloses infringement; and (b) redesigned FaceTime’s servers do not provide an ‘indication’ that the system supports establishing a direct communication link, as the claims require.” 3. “Whether the district court erred in concluding that issue preclusion barred Apple from raising its invalidity defenses and counterclaims that were not actually litigated in the prior case.” 4. “Whether the district court erred in refusing to enter judgment of non-infringement on Apple’s counterclaim regarding iMessage, where VirnetX presented no evidence regarding iMessage at trial.” 5. “Whether the judgment should be vacated if this Court affirms the PTO’s determinations that the asserted claims of some or all patents-in-suit are unpatentable.”
1. “The record contains substantial evidence that the redesigned version of VPN on Demand performs every step of the methods claimed in the asserted claims of the ’135 patent. . . . Having rejected Apple argument for the ’135 patent’s language, we reject the argument for the ’151 patent’s language as well. But Apple has an additional challenge to the infringement finding for claim 13 of the ’151 patent. We also reject this separate challenge. ” 2. “We agree with Apple that the claim term ‘domain name service system’ in all the asserted claims at issue, when properly construed, requires that the system include what a ‘domain name service’ requires under its construction (not challenged on appeal). That is, we conclude that the district court erred as a matter of law in ruling that ‘the construction of “domain name service system” does not incorporate the construction of “domain name service.”‘ J.A. 26684. Because no reasonable jury could find infringement under the correct construction, we hold that Apple is entitled to judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement as to those two patents.” 3. “We conclude that each of the invalidity challenges Apple now asserts was actually litigated and resolved in the 417 litigation. We therefore affirm the district court’s determination that Apple is precluded from raising these invalidity challenges in the present case. ” 4. Not addressed in the opinion. 5. Not addressed in the opinion.