`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:10-CV-417
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`This action was tried by a jury with the undersigned presiding, and the jury has reached a
`
`verdict.
`
`It is ORDERED that Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) did not infringe the following
`
`claims:
`
`• Claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135;
`
`• Claims 2 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,759;
`
`• Claims 36, 47, and 51 of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504; and
`
`• Claims 1, 8, 23, 27, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211.
`
`It if further ORDERED that the following claims are not invalid:
`
`• Claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,502, 135;
`
`• Claims 2 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,759;
`
`• Claims 36, 47, and 51 of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504; and
`
`• Claims 1, 8, 23, 27, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211.
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2005
`New Bay Capital v. Virnetx
`Case IPR2013-00375
`
`
`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 792 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27989
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff VirnetX,
`
`Inc. take nothing from Cisco, that Cisco takes nothing of its invalidity counterclaims from
`
`VirnetX, Inc., and that all pending motions are DENIED.
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of March, 2013.
`
`