I think if VHC is confident it can win in a remanded trial, it should go for it without further delay.
I agree with Green's opinion, they should go for the remanded trial at the earliest. According to Investor_don in his post# 77561, VirnetX should have little trouble proving to the jury that FT is anonymous.
Investor_Don wrote: The CAFC are asking for proof that Facetime
connections have both encryption and anonymity. When the Facetime call is actually
set up from user A to user B it is exactly the same process as a secure VPN and
it has both encryption and anonymity. This can be proven to the jury by VirnetX
using the Apple source code and a network protocol analyzer.
Don further states: It can be easily proven by the
source code and network protocol analysis, that Facetime servers set up a VPN.
The CAFC acknowledges that a VPN provides both encryption and anonymity.
However, I am not sure the facts Apple uses to assert that Facetime is not anonymous. Is Apple saying that its after a secure communications link is established for end-to-end data transmission, that this is not anonymous and they can prove it?
OR, are they saying that it is when the set up for a FT call is first started from the user's device to a proxy server for the DNS lookup, (before an end-to-end secure communications link and VPN is actually created), that this is not anonymous and therefore FT is not anonymous, and this is their interpretation of the matter?
If its the latter, will it just be a matter for the jury/court to determine within the definition of the construction term/s what part of the Facetime call should be anonymous (i.e; the secure link) and what part does not need to be anonymous (i.e; the DNS lookup to set up the secure link) for infringement?