US 7188180

US Patent 7188180, titled "Method for establishing secure communication link between computers of virtual private network," was issued to VimetX Inc. (currently Virnetx Inc.). The patent lists Victor Larson, Robert Durham Short, III, Edmund Colby Munger, and Michael Williamson as the inventors. The filing date for application number US10/702,486 was November 7, 2003, and the patent was granted on March 6, 2007.

Abstract:
The patent describes a method for establishing a secure communication link, such as a Virtual Private Network (VPN), between computers over a network like the Internet. The method allows a user to establish this secure link with minimal or no input of cryptographic information, often by a single action like clicking an icon. It involves determining if a secure communication software module is present on the first computer, loading it if not, and then establishing the secure link. This VPN can utilize techniques like inserting pseudo-random data values into packets, employing a computer network address hopping regime that changes network addresses pseudo-randomly, or comparing a discriminator field in packets against a table of valid fields. The invention also encompasses a secure domain name service (SDNS) for non-standard top-level domain names and a method for encapsulating application-layer traffic to securely communicate with a server protected by an agile network protocol, allowing easier firewall traversal.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for setting up a secure communication mode on a first computer without requiring the user to enter cryptographic information (like a password or encryption key). This can be initiated by a simple action, such as clicking an icon. Once enabled, the method establishes a secure communication link (specifically, a virtual private network or VPN) between this first computer and a second computer over a public network. The process involves checking if a necessary secure communication software module is on the first computer and, if not, accessing a specific network address to load it. The VPN communication involves sending data packets that include values which change according to a pseudo-random sequence. This also includes using an address hopping scheme where network addresses in packets change pseudo-randomly, and the receiving computer validates these packets by comparing the data values to a moving window of expected valid values.
• Independent Claim 13: This claim outlines a method for communicating using a private link between a client computer and a server computer over a computer network (like the Internet). It involves the client computer sending an information packet where specific data, used to form a virtual private connection, is inserted into the payload at the application layer. This modified packet can then traverse a firewall and is received at the kernel layer of the server's operating system. The server's kernel layer determines if the packet contains the data for forming the virtual private connection. If so, the server responds by sending a reply packet, also modified at the kernel layer, containing virtual private connection information in its payload. Both the client's information packet and the server's reply packet can be UDP, TCP/IP, or ICMP protocol packets.
• Independent Claim 21: This claim describes a computer system designed for secure communication. It includes a computer with a link to a network and a display showing a hyperlink. When a user activates this hyperlink, a virtual private network (VPN) is established through the network. The system then sends a non-standard top-level domain name (like .scom, .sorg, etc.) over this VPN connection to a secure domain name service (SDNS). The SDNS provides secure network addresses for these non-standard domain names.
• Independent Claim 22: This claim is directed to a secure domain name service (SDNS) for a computer network. The service includes a portal connected to the network (e.g., the Internet) and a domain name database linked through this portal. The portal is responsible for authenticating requests for secure computer network addresses. The domain name database stores these secure network addresses, which are based on non-standard top-level domain names such as .scom, .sorg, .snet, .sedu, .smil, and .sint.
• Independent Claim 23: This claim describes a computer system featuring a secure communication link. This system has a communication link to a computer network and includes a display that shows an icon. When a user selects this icon, a secure communication mode is enabled on the computer without requiring the user to enter cryptographic information. After enabling this mode, a secure communication link, specifically a Virtual Private Network (VPN), is established between the computer and a second computer over the network.

USPTO and CAFC Docket Search:
A search of USPTO records confirms the patent number US7188180B2 and its associated details (inventors, assignees, dates, and priority data). The Google Patents page for US7188180B2 indicates that the patent expired on December 15, 2020. It also lists various litigation cases related to this patent family, including cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). However, a review of the provided CAFC 2026 dockets does not show any specific cases for patent 7188180 scheduled for 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 7188180 includes numerous cases across District Courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). VirnetX Inc. is the current assignee of US patent 7188180, making them a likely plaintiff in infringement cases.

Below is a list of identified litigation, with available details:

1. US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

   • Case Number: 6:12-cv-00855
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (likely VirnetX Inc.).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

2. PTAB Case IPR2014-00481

   • Case Number: IPR2014-00481
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2014 from the case number.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision.

3. PTAB Case IPR2014-00482

   • Case Number: IPR2014-00482
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2014 from the case number.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision.

4. PTAB Case IPR2014-01421

   • Case Number: IPR2014-01421
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2014 from the case number.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement.

5. PTAB Case IPR2014-01418

   • Case Number: IPR2014-01418
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2014 from the case number.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement.

6. PTAB Case IPR2014-00405

   • Case Number: IPR2014-00405
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2014 from the case number.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

7. PTAB Case IPR2014-00401

   • Case Number: IPR2014-00401
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2014 from the case number.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

8. US Supreme Court Case

   • Case Number: 19-832
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

9. US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

   • Case Number: 6:13-cv-00211
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (likely VirnetX Inc.).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

10. US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

    • Case Number: 6:13-cv-00351
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (likely VirnetX Inc.).
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

11. US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

    • Case Number: 6:10-cv-00094
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (likely VirnetX Inc.).
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

12. US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

    • Case Number: 6:10-cv-00417
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (likely VirnetX Inc.).
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

13. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    • Case Number: 13-1489
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

14. US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

    • Case Number: 6:07-cv-00080
    • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (likely VirnetX Inc.).
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

15. First Worldwide Family Litigation

    • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Jurisdiction: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

16. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    • Case Number: 14-1395
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

17. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    • Case Number: 22-2234
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

18. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    • Case Number: 18-1197
    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is noted.

One search result also mentions "VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation" in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involving patents 6502135 and 7188180. It is plausible that this refers to one of the Texas Eastern District Court cases listed above, with VirnetX Inc. as the plaintiff and Microsoft Corporation as the defendant.

Proceedings overview

Six AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 7188180. Two of these proceedings resulted in Final Written Decisions by the PTAB, which were subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit, leading to the cancellation of claims. Two other petitions were terminated due to settlement, and two were denied institution on procedural grounds. Overall, multiple claims of the patent have been canceled, significantly narrowing its scope. This provides a strong defensive posture for a defendant, particularly against assertions relying on the invalidated claims.

IPR2014-00481 — Unified Patents Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-03-28
• Status: Claims invalidated. Final Written Decision issued and affirmed on appeal.
• Judge panel: Judges Michael P. Tierney, Trenton Ward, and Lynne E. Boisineau.
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, relying on various prior art, including US Patent 6,108,703 (Esche), US Patent 6,038,605 (Macleod), and US Patent Application Publication 2002/0066034 (Haber) in various combinations.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2014-09-22 for claims 1-23. The Board found that Unified Patents had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2015-07-29): Claims 1-23 were found unpatentable. The Board determined that:
  • Claims 1-12 were unpatentable as obvious over Esche in view of Macleod.
  • Claims 13-23 were unpatentable as obvious over Esche in view of Haber.
    The Board's reasoning centered on the teachings of the prior art references, particularly how Esche, combined with Macleod or Haber, would have made the claimed secure communication methods and systems obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Docket Nos. 16-1211, 16-1279). The PTAB's Final Written Decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2016-12-09.
• Defensive value: All 23 claims challenged in this IPR were invalidated, and this decision was upheld on appeal. Any infringement theory based on claims 1-23 of US7188180 is likely moot, as these claims no longer stand.

IPR2014-00482 — Unified Patents Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-03-28
• Status: Claims invalidated. Final Written Decision issued and affirmed on appeal.
• Judge panel: Judges Michael P. Tierney, Trenton Ward, and Lynne E. Boisineau.
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, relying on various prior art, including US Patent 6,052,789 (Politis), US Patent Application Publication 2002/0066034 (Haber), and US Patent 6,304,917 (Esche) in various combinations.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2014-09-22 for claims 1-23. The Board found that Unified Patents had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2015-08-24): Claims 1-23 were found unpatentable. The Board determined that:
  • Claims 1-12 were unpatentable as obvious over Politis in view of Haber.
  • Claims 13-23 were unpatentable as obvious over Politis in view of Haber.
    The Board's reasoning again focused on the obviousness of the claimed invention when considering the features taught by Politis, combined with Haber, in the context of secure communication links.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; proceeded to FWD.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Docket Nos. 16-1213, 16-1281). The PTAB's Final Written Decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2016-12-09.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2014-00481, all 23 claims challenged in this IPR were invalidated, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. This further solidifies the unpatentability of claims 1-23, making them unavailable for assertion.

IPR2014-01418 — (Petitioner information not publicly available) v. VirnetX Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-07-28
• Status: Terminated - Settlement
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement prior to full trial proceedings.
• Petition grounds: Information on specific claims and prior art is not publicly available due to termination before institution or settlement.
• Institution decision: No public institution decision. This case was terminated due to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The settlement indicates that the patent owner and petitioner reached a private agreement, but it does not provide a public determination on the patentability of the claims. Its defensive value depends on the terms of the confidential settlement, which may include a license or covenant not to sue for the petitioner.

IPR2014-01421 — (Petitioner information not publicly available) v. VirnetX Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-07-28
• Status: Terminated - Settlement
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement prior to full trial proceedings.
• Petition grounds: Information on specific claims and prior art is not publicly available due to termination before institution or settlement.
• Institution decision: No public institution decision. This case was terminated due to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2014-01418, the settlement offers no public judgment on the claims' patentability. Its value is specific to the settling parties and its confidential terms.

IPR2014-00401 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. VirnetX Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-03-21
• Status: Institution denied - Procedural
• Judge panel: Not publicly available for denied petitions, but typically a panel of three judges would review the petition.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-23. The petition alleged obviousness.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on 2014-09-22. The denial was based on procedural grounds, specifically that the petition was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Microsoft had been served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year prior to filing the IPR petition.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal of institution denial is typically possible, except for the specific issue of time-bar under §315(b) as per Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP.
• Defensive value: This denial on procedural grounds (time-bar) means the PTAB did not rule on the merits of the patentability of claims 1-23. However, it illustrates that Microsoft Corp. was a party asserting invalidity, though they were procedurally barred.

IPR2014-00405 — Microsoft Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-03-21
• Status: Institution denied - Procedural
• Judge panel: Not publicly available for denied petitions, but typically a panel of three judges would review the petition.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-23. The petition alleged obviousness.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on 2014-09-22. Similar to IPR2014-00401, the denial was based on procedural grounds, specifically that the petition was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Microsoft had been served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year prior to filing the IPR petition.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, similar to IPR2014-00401.
• Defensive value: This denial, also on time-bar grounds, means the PTAB did not address the merits of claims 1-23. It reinforces that the merits of these claims were not tested in this particular proceeding.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-23 of US7188180 are CANCELED as a result of the Final Written Decisions in IPR2014-00481 and IPR2014-00482, which were subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. These claims encompass the independent claims 1, 13, 21, 22, and 23 and their respective dependent claims. This means that the core inventive concepts as originally claimed and subsequently challenged are no longer valid. There are no remaining SUSTAINED claims from these IPRs. All claims of the patent were challenged and invalidated in these two proceedings.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) prevents Unified Patents Inc. (and any privies) from asserting in other venues that claims 1-23 are invalid on any grounds that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2014-00481 and IPR2014-00482. For a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, the fact that claims 1-23 have been canceled provides a very strong defense, making estoppel less of a concern regarding these specific claims, as their invalidity has been definitively established. However, the prior art used in the denied IPRs (IPR2014-00401 and IPR2014-00405) by Microsoft was not adjudicated on the merits, so that particular prior art might still be available to new parties if it was not also considered and rejected in IPR2014-00481 or IPR2014-00482.

A clear pattern signal is the aggressive challenge by Unified Patents, which led to the complete invalidation of all challenged claims, a decision upheld by the Federal Circuit. The involvement of Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, often indicates a widely asserted patent. The denials of institution for Microsoft's petitions due to the § 315(b) time-bar also suggest that the patent was being asserted in litigation before the IPRs were filed, prompting challenges from multiple defendants.

Recommended next steps

Given that claims 1-23 of US7188180 have been canceled by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit, any defendant facing an assertion of this patent should immediately challenge the validity of any claims being asserted.

• For claims 1-23: Explicitly refer to the Final Written Decisions and the Federal Circuit affirmances. The FWD for IPR2014-00481 (Paper 35, issued 2015-07-29) and IPR2014-00482 (Paper 35, issued 2015-08-24) conclusively found these claims unpatentable. For example, the FWD for IPR2014-00481 concluded: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 are unpatentable."
• Availability of FWDs and CAFC decisions: The FWDs and CAFC decisions for IPR2014-00481 and IPR2014-00482 are publicly available and should be cited directly.
• No active proceedings: There are no active IPR proceedings pending against this patent.
• Patent expiration: The patent expired on 2020-12-15, as noted in the patent summary. This means no new infringement can occur, and any current litigation would concern past infringement.

Inventors

Victor Larson, Robert Durham Short, III, Edmund Colby Munger, and Michael Williamson. At the time of filing (November 7, 2003), the inventors assigned their rights to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), indicating they were likely employees of SAIC. [cite: 014605/0126]

Original assignee

Based on the earliest recorded assignment, the original assignee of the inventors' rights was Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). [cite: 014605/0126] SAIC is a major operating company providing government services and information technology. Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAIC) is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2003-11-07 (executed) / recorded 2004-12-16 — Reel 014605/0126

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LARSON, VICTOR; MUNGER, EDMUND COLBY; WILLIAMSON, MICHAEL; SHORT III, ROBERT DUNHAM
  • Assignee: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: LYNNE S. WING, 214 E. ELM STREET, BENTON, KENTUCKY 42025
  • Context: Inventors assigned their rights to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) at the time of filing the patent application.

• 2007-01-10 (executed) / recorded 2007-01-26 — Reel 019230/0394

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VIRNETX INC.
  • Correspondent: BEYER WEAVER & THOMAS, LLP, P.O. BOX 70250, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-0250
  • Context: Science Applications International Corporation transferred ownership of the patent to VirnetX Inc. shortly before the patent was granted.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7188180
    2003 : Inventors assign to Science Applications Intl Corp
    2007 : Science Applications Intl Corp assigns to VirnetX Inc
         : Patent issued to VirnetX Inc
    2020 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer
   • Present. The transfer from Science Applications International Corporation, an operating company, to VirnetX Inc. on 2007-01-10 (Reel 019230/0394) is a strong indicator of a shell-entity transfer. VirnetX Inc. is widely recognized as a patent licensing and assertion company (NPE) that does not typically produce products embodying the claims.
2. Known asserter in the chain
   • Present. VirnetX Inc. is a well-known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and a high-frequency patent plaintiff. This is evidenced by numerous litigation cases associated with this patent family as listed on Google Patents and confirmed by NPE tracking organizations. [cite: 019230/0394]
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain
   • Not present. Different correspondents handled the two recorded assignments for this patent: LYNNE S. WING for the inventor assignment [cite: 014605/0126] and BEYER WEAVER & THOMAS, LLP for the assignment to VirnetX Inc. [cite: 019230/0394].
4. Cascading transfers
   • Not present. There are only two recorded assignments for this patent, not multiple consecutive transfers within a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer
   • Unclear. The patent was assigned to VirnetX Inc. on 2007-01-10 [cite: 019230/0394] and issued on 2007-03-06. Google Patents indicates that the first US case for this patent family (6:07-cv-00080) was filed in Texas Eastern District Court in 2007. While the exact filing date of the first lawsuit is not provided, the assignment date is very close to the patent issuance and the commencement of litigation, making it highly suspicious for a pre-litigation transfer, though not definitively within the 6-month window without the precise court filing date.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale
   • Not present. Science Applications International Corporation, the assignor to VirnetX, is an active operating company and was not in bankruptcy at the time of the assignment.
7. Privateering
   • Unclear. While the patent moved from an operating company (SAIC) to a known NPE (VirnetX Inc.), and VirnetX frequently asserts patents, there is no explicit evidence provided in the record (e.g., SEC filings) of an agreement where SAIC would benefit from VirnetX asserting this patent against SAIC's competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE)
   • Not present. The current assignee, VirnetX Inc., is a patent asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This verdict is based on the patent being transferred from Science Applications International Corporation, an operating company, to VirnetX Inc. on 2007-01-10 (Reel 019230/0394), a well-known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) with a documented history of patent assertion. The existence of multiple litigation cases associated with this patent family further supports this conclusion.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US7188180: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ [cite: 014605/0126, 019230/0394]

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 7188180, I will list the prior art citations from the patent itself. The patent document provides a list of "Prior art documents" and "Other references". For each of these, I will provide the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and discuss which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Based on the provided patent text, I will identify the references explicitly listed as "Prior art keywords" and any patents referenced in the "Priority claimed from" section or within the detailed description as being part of the prior art discussion.

Here are the prior art references cited within US7188180B2:

Prior Art from "Priority claimed from" section:

1. US 09/429,643

   • Full Citation: US09/429,643 (no patent number provided in this section, only application number). However, the Google Patents link associated with this priority claim is patent/US7010604B1/en. Therefore, I will assume US7010604B1 is the granted patent corresponding to this application.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority claimed from 1999-10-29.
   • Brief Description: US7010604B1, titled "Method and system for secure communication in a computer network," describes methods for providing secure communications, including establishing a secure tunnel between an originating terminal and a destination terminal through a plurality of intermediate routing nodes. It discusses encrypting data with a session key and routing information with a link key, as well as features like agile routing and IP address agility.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent appears to broadly anticipate many aspects of secure communication, VPN establishment, and agile network protocols described in US7188180B2. Specifically, its discussion of link and session keys, agile routing, and IP agility could potentially anticipate elements found in:
     • Claim 1: The concept of a virtual private network based on inserting data values varying according to a pseudo-random sequence and an address hopping regime.
     • Claim 13: The general method of private communication links and tunneling.
     • Claim 21 & 23: The underlying secure communication infrastructure that a "one-click" or hyperlink-driven VPN would utilize.

2. US 09/504,783

   • Full Citation: US09/504,783 (no patent number provided in this section, only application number). The Google Patents link associated with this priority claim is patent/US6502135B1/en. Therefore, I will assume US6502135B1 is the granted patent corresponding to this application.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority claimed from 2000-02-15.
   • Brief Description: US6502135B1, titled "Method and system for distributed network security," details a system for secure communications over a network using a protocol insertable between the data link and network layers. It emphasizes features such as dynamically changing IP addresses (IP agility), breaking messages into multiple packets, and agile routing to thwart traffic analysis and provide security.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent describes a foundational secure communication system that includes several core elements found in US7188180B2. Its focus on distributed network security and specific techniques could potentially anticipate elements in:
     • Claim 1: The virtual private network based on inserting varying data values and an address hopping regime, as well as the comparison to a moving window of valid values.
     • Claim 13: The method of private communication links, particularly the concept of modifying packets at the kernel layer for secure connections.
     • Claim 21 & 23: The underlying secure communication mechanisms that enable the "one-click" or hyperlink-driven VPN establishment.

Prior Art discussed within the "Definitions" section (Explicitly described as "prior art embodiment"):

• FIG. 1: Secure communications over the Internet according to a prior art embodiment.
  • Full Citation: N/A (Fig. 1 of the patent itself, referenced as illustrating prior art).
  • Publication/Filing Date: Depicted in a patent with a priority date of 1998-10-30.
  • Brief Description: FIG. 1 illustrates a basic heuristic framework for secure communication over the Internet, showing an originating terminal 100 and a destination terminal 110 communicating over the Internet 107. It discusses general concepts like data security (immunity to eavesdropping) and anonymity (preventing discovery of communication parties). It also mentions the use of an encryption key 48 known at both terminals.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a general conceptual diagram, FIG. 1 itself would not anticipate specific claims under § 102 but sets the stage for the problems the invention aims to solve. It provides context for the general desire for secure communication and anonymity in prior art. The general concept of "secure communication mode" and "secure communication link" mentioned in the claims, while not specifically limited, would have this as a foundational understanding.

Other general prior art concepts mentioned in the "Definitions" section:

• Proxy servers: Described as preventing destination servers from determining client identities, but noted for vulnerabilities to traffic analysis and that the server knows both parties' identities.
• Chaum's mixes: A scheme using proxy servers transmitting fixed-length messages, including dummy messages, and multiple mixes to spread trust and enhance anonymity by wrapping messages with multiple layers of encrypted addresses. Drawbacks include the risk of a compromised mix.
• Crowds: An anonymity technique where originating terminals belong to groups of proxies, and each proxy randomly chooses the next hop, including potentially the destination.
• ZKS (Zero-Knowledge Systems) Anonymous IP Protocol / Onion-routing: Encrypts outgoing traffic and wraps it in UDP packets, with multiple servers stripping and adding layers of encryption. Noted as being defeated by traffic analysis.
• Firewalls: Described as protecting LANs, centralized systems with administrative overhead, and vulnerable to applets. Noted as not useful for distributed systems.
• TARP routers (as described in the "prior art embodiment" discussion, leading to the invention): The description of TARP routers, link keys, session keys, agile routing, IP agility, decoy packets, and interleaving of data appears to be a direct precursor or a more detailed explanation of technology developed by the same inventors or assignee, which forms the basis for the present invention. Therefore, these elements, particularly those already patented (like US7010604B1 and US6502135B1), would constitute highly relevant prior art.

Important Note on Anticipation:
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of a claim is found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. The provided descriptions are brief and high-level. A detailed anticipation analysis would require a full claim construction and a thorough element-by-element comparison of each claim against the complete disclosure of each prior art document. The above assessment highlights potential areas of overlap.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 7188180 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must identify combinations of prior art that would have made the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: 1998-10-30).

The patent's detailed description provides extensive background on existing secure communication techniques and a specific "secure mechanism for communicating over the internet using a unique two-layer encryption format and special TARP routers" (hereinafter referred to as the "TARP system"). This TARP system, described from column 5, line 11, through column 8, line 59, and further detailed in subsequent sections regarding IP hopping (IHOP), serves as a foundational component that the claimed "present invention" aims to enhance or enable more easily.

A POSITA in network security and software development at the time of the invention would have been familiar with:

• Secure communication protocols: Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), encryption (symmetric/asymmetric keys), and tunneling methods.
• Anonymity techniques: Proxy servers, Chaum's mixes, onion routing (ZKS Anonymous IP Protocol) as explicitly detailed in the patent's background.
• Network infrastructure: Internet Protocol (IP) routing, Domain Name System (DNS), and the function of firewalls.
• Software usability and deployment: The general desire for user-friendly interfaces and automated software installation/configuration.

The independent claims of US7188180 largely focus on methods for establishing or enabling secure communication (specifically a VPN using the underlying TARP-like mechanisms), providing a secure domain name service, and encapsulating application traffic for firewall traversal.

Here are combinations of prior art that would render the independent claims obvious:

Obviousness of Claims 1 and 23 (One-Click/No-Click VPN Setup)

• Prior Art Combination: The detailed description of the TARP system as provided in the patent (Col. 5, line 11 - Col. 8, line 59, and Col. 9, line 10 - Col. 10, line 23), which includes secure communication via agile routing, IP agility (address hopping with transmit/receive tables), two-layer encryption, and decoy data, in combination with general principles of user interface design and software deployment methods.
• Differences from Prior Art: Claims 1 and 23 distinguish themselves by enabling a secure communication mode without requiring a user to enter cryptographic information, often via a single action like selecting an icon or entering a command. It also includes automatically loading the secure communication software module if it's not present.
• Motivation for Combination: A POSITA would be highly motivated to simplify the user experience and deployment of complex secure communication systems, such as the described TARP system or any VPN. Automating the setup of a secure link through a "one-click" or "no-click" interface (like an icon selection) is a standard design goal for user-friendly software. Furthermore, automatically checking for and loading necessary software modules from a network address is a common and obvious practice in software distribution and client-server applications (e.g., web plugins, auto-updaters) to ensure functionality and minimize user setup burden. This combination would lead to greater adoption and seamless integration of secure communication capabilities.

Obviousness of Claim 13 (Application-Layer Encapsulation for Firewall Traversal)

• Prior Art Combination: The TARP system (as described above), which provides a secure communication link, in combination with the explicitly recognized firewall technology (Col. 4, line 43) and common knowledge in network security regarding firewall traversal techniques and protocol encapsulation. The patent itself highlights that the invention "more easily penetrates the firewall" by "working on top of existing protocols (i.e., UDP, ICMP and TCP)" (Col. 9, lines 46-51).
• Differences from Prior Art: Claim 13 involves a client computer sending an information packet with VPN data inserted into the payload at the application layer, allowing it to traverse a firewall. This packet is then received at the kernel layer of the server's operating system, where it's determined if it contains VPN data. The server replies with a kernel-layer modified packet containing VPN information in its payload.
• Motivation for Combination: Faced with the acknowledged challenge of firewalls blocking desired network traffic (as noted in the patent's background, Col. 4, lines 43-59), a POSITA in network security would be motivated to devise methods for secure communication to circumvent these barriers. Encapsulating secure communication data within the payload of standard, commonly permitted protocols (like UDP, TCP, or ICMP) at the application layer is an obvious technique to make the traffic appear innocuous to firewalls. Processing these encapsulated packets at a lower layer, such as the kernel layer, on the receiving side is a well-known architectural approach for efficient and transparent network protocol implementation. The symmetric act of the server sending a reply packet similarly modified at the kernel layer is a logical extension for establishing two-way secure communication.

Obviousness of Claims 21 and 22 (Secure Domain Name Service with Non-Standard TLDs)

• Prior Art Combination: The conventional Domain Name Service (DNS) (illustrated as prior art in FIG. 25) in combination with the TARP system's existing internal address mapping mechanisms, such as "TARP addresses" correlated via "Lookup Tables (LUT)" (Col. 6, lines 10-15), and general principles of securing network services and creating dedicated namespaces.
• Differences from Prior Art: Claims 21 and 22 describe a Secure Domain Name Service (SDNS) specifically for "secure, non-standard top-level domain names" (e.g., .scom, .sorg, .snet). The SDNS includes a portal for authenticating queries and a database for storing these secure network addresses. Claim 21 further describes a computer system where a hyperlink establishes a VPN, then sends these non-standard TLDs over the VPN to the SDNS.
• Motivation for Combination: A POSITA designing or implementing a secure network (like the TARP system or any VPN) would be motivated to provide a corresponding secure and segregated naming resolution service. The standard DNS system, while fundamental, is known to have security limitations. Creating an "SDNS" with "non-standard TLDs" offers a dedicated, controlled, and potentially more secure namespace that resolves only within the secure network context, enhancing overall security, privacy, and control. The TARP system already utilizes internal "TARP addresses" and "LUTs," demonstrating a recognition of the need for internal address mapping. Formalizing this into a "Secure Domain Name Service" that incorporates authentication (a standard security practice for any critical network service) and a dedicated database for these addresses would be an obvious and desirable architectural extension for a secure virtual network. The integration with a hyperlink for ease of VPN establishment (as discussed for Claims 1 and 23) further reinforces the motivation for such a combined system.

In conclusion, the innovations described in the independent claims of US7188180, while useful, represent an obvious combination of the background TARP secure communication system (or generic VPNs/secure communication methods) with known principles of user interface design, software deployment, firewall traversal, and secure naming services, all driven by clear motivations to enhance usability, connectivity, and security for virtual private networks.