Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Note 14 - Litigation We have four intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending against multiple parties in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that these parties infringe on certain of our patents. We seek damages and injunctive relief in all the complaints. VirnetX Inc. et al., v. Microsoft Corporation On April 22, 2013, we initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that Microsoft has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,188,180, 7,418,504, 7,490,151, 7,921,211, and 7,987,274. We seek damages and injunctive relief. The Markman hearing in this case is scheduled for September 4, 2014 and the jury trial is scheduled for July 13, 2015. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Severed Case) On August 11, 2010, we initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and NEC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that these parties infringe on certain of our patents. We seek damages and injunctive relief. On February 4, 2011, we amended our original complaint, filed on August 11, 2010, against Aastra, Apple, Cisco and NEC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 against Apple and Aastra. On April 5, 2011, we again amended our complaint against Aastra, Apple, Cisco and NEC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, to include Apple’s iPad 2 in the list of Apple products that are accused of infringing our patents. We also asserted our newly-issued patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 against all of the defendants in that lawsuit. A claim construction hearing was held on January 5, 2012 and the court issued a Markman ruling on April 25, 2012. Aastra and NEC have signed license agreements with us and we have agreed to drop all the accusations of infringement against them. At the pre-trial hearing, the judge decided to postpone the trial against Cisco to March 4, 2013 and just try the case against Apple. On November 6, 2012, a Jury in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, awarded us over $368 million in a verdict against Apple Corporation for infringing four of our patents. A post-trial hearing in the case against Apple was held on December 20, 2012. On February 26, 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions resulting from the prior jury verdict. The Court denied Apple’s motion to reduce the damages awarded by the jury for past infringement. The Court further denied Apple’s request for a new trial on the liability and damages portions of the verdict. Additionally, the Court granted our motions for pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and post-verdict damages to date. Specifically, the Court ordered that Apple pay $34 in daily interest up to final judgment and $330 in daily damages for infringement up to final judgment for certain Apple devices included in the verdict. The Court denied our request for a permanent injunction. In doing so, the Court ordered the parties to mediate over a license in the following 45 days for Apple’s future infringing use not covered by the Court’s Order, and ordered us to file an appropriate motion with the court if the parties fail to agree to a license. On March 28, 2013, Apple filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment entered by the Court. The mediation was held on April 9, 2013 and the parties did not come to an agreement on an ongoing royalty rate for infringing Apple products. We filed our opposition to this motion on April 10, 2013. As ordered by the Court, we filed a sealed motion with the Court on April 16, 2013, requesting the Court’s assistance in deciding an appropriate royalty rate for all infringing products shipped by Apple that are “not more than colorably different” with regards to the accused functionality. However, the judgment may be appealed and no assurances can be given as to when or if we will receive any proceeds in connection with these matters, and accordingly there has been no recognition of the jury awards or royalties in our accompanying financial statements. Under our agreements with Leidos, Inc. we would pay to Leidos, Inc. 25% of the proceeds obtained by us in this lawsuit against Apple after reduction for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating those claims. We are awaiting the Court’s decision in this matter. On July 1, 2013, the Court entered an Order setting a hearing on our motion for an ongoing royalty for August 15, 2013. On July 3, 2013, Apple filed an appeal of the judgment dated February 27, 2013 and order dated June 4, 2013 denying Apple’s motion to alter or amend the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 16, 2013 Apple filed its opening appeal brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Our response to the opening brief was filed on December 02, 2013, and on December 19, 2013, Apple filed its final response to complete the briefing of the court. The case is scheduled for hearing on March 03, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439), Courtroom 402. The jury trial against Cisco was held on March 4, 2013. At the end of the trial, the jury came back with a verdict of non-infringement in the trial. The same jury determined that all our patents-in-suit patents are not invalid. On April 3, 2013, we filed a request for a new trial regarding Cisco’s infringement of four of our patents based primarily on our allegations of Cisco’s inappropriate conduct and arguments during the jury trial that concluded on March 14, 2013. In addition to the request for a new trial, we filed a motion for a judgment as a matter of law on Cisco’s infringement of the ‘759 patent. On April 11, 2013, in response to our motion, Cisco filed its renewed motion to dismiss as moot its invalidity counterclaims against the claims in our patents that were not asserted in the lawsuit as well as a conditional motion for a new trial on certain limited claims and defenses. We are awaiting the Court’s decision in this matter. A hearing on our motion for new trial and Cisco’s renewed motion to dismiss as moot its invalidity counterclaims and conditional motion for a new trial was held on June 17, 2013. We are awaiting the Court’s ruling on these motions. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. On November 1, 2011, we initiated a lawsuit against Apple in the United States District Court, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that Apple infringes one or more claims of our U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181. We seek damages and injunctive relief. On June 17, 2013 the Court granted our unopposed motion to lift the stay ordered by the Court on December 15, 2011. On June 18, 2013 the Court granted the parties unopposed motion to consolidate this case with Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00855-LED. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc. On November 6, 2012, we filed a new complaint against Apple Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division for willfully infringing four of our patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151, and seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers. Due to their release dates, these products were not included in the previous lawsuit that concluded with a Jury verdict on November 6, 2012 that was subsequently upheld by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, on February 26, 2013. On July 1, 2013, we filed a consolidated and amended complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 and consolidate Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00563-LED. On August 27, 2013, we filed an amended complaint including allegations of willful infringement related to U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697 seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The Markman hearing in this case is scheduled for May 8, 2014 and the jury trial is scheduled for October 13, 2015. One or more potential intellectual property infringement claims may also be available to us against certain other companies who have the resources to defend against any such claims. Although we believe these potential claims are worth pursuing, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we will prevail on such potential claims. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may preclude our ability to commercialize our initial products, which are currently in development. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings, and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us by any governmental authority or other party.

Note 14 - Litigation

We have four intellectual property infringement lawsuits pending against multiple parties in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that these parties infringe on certain of our patents. We seek damages and injunctive relief in all the complaints.

VirnetX Inc. et al., v. Microsoft Corporation

On April 22, 2013, we initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that Microsoft has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,188,180, 7,418,504, 7,490,151, 7,921,211, and 7,987,274. We seek damages and injunctive relief. The Markman hearing in this case is scheduled for September 4, 2014 and the jury trial is scheduled for July 13, 2015.

VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Severed Case)

On August 11, 2010, we initiated a lawsuit by filing a complaint against Aastra, Apple, Cisco, and NEC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that these parties infringe on certain of our patents. We seek damages and injunctive relief. On February 4, 2011, we amended our original complaint, filed on August 11, 2010, against Aastra, Apple, Cisco and NEC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 against Apple and Aastra. On April 5, 2011, we again amended our complaint against Aastra, Apple, Cisco and NEC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, to include Apple’s iPad 2 in the list of Apple products that are accused of infringing our patents. We also asserted our newly-issued patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 against all of the defendants in that lawsuit. A claim construction hearing was held on January 5, 2012 and the court issued a Markman ruling on April 25, 2012. Aastra and NEC have signed license agreements with us and we have agreed to drop all the accusations of infringement against them. At the pre-trial hearing, the judge decided to postpone the trial against Cisco to March 4, 2013 and just try the case against Apple. On November 6, 2012, a Jury in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, awarded us over $368 million in a verdict against Apple Corporation for infringing four of our patents. A post-trial hearing in the case against Apple was held on December 20, 2012. On February 26, 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding post-trial motions resulting from the prior jury verdict. The Court denied Apple’s motion to reduce the damages awarded by the jury for past infringement. The Court further denied Apple’s request for a new trial on the liability and damages portions of the verdict. Additionally, the Court granted our motions for pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and post-verdict damages to date. Specifically, the Court ordered that Apple pay $34 in daily interest up to final judgment and $330 in daily damages for infringement up to final judgment for certain Apple devices included in the verdict. The Court denied our request for a permanent injunction. In doing so, the Court ordered the parties to mediate over a license in the following 45 days for Apple’s future infringing use not covered by the Court’s Order, and ordered us to file an appropriate motion with the court if the parties fail to agree to a license. On March 28, 2013, Apple filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment entered by the Court. The mediation was held on April 9, 2013 and the parties did not come to an agreement on an ongoing royalty rate for infringing Apple products. We filed our opposition to this motion on April 10, 2013. As ordered by the Court, we filed a sealed motion with the Court on April 16, 2013, requesting the Court’s assistance in deciding an appropriate royalty rate for all infringing products shipped by Apple that are “not more than colorably different” with regards to the accused functionality. However, the judgment may be appealed and no assurances can be given as to when or if we will receive any proceeds in connection with these matters, and accordingly there has been no recognition of the jury awards or royalties in our accompanying financial statements. Under our agreements with Leidos, Inc. we would pay to Leidos, Inc. 25% of the proceeds obtained by us in this lawsuit against Apple after reduction for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating those claims. We are awaiting the Court’s decision in this matter. On July 1, 2013, the Court entered an Order setting a hearing on our motion for an ongoing royalty for August 15, 2013. On July 3, 2013, Apple filed an appeal of the judgment dated February 27, 2013 and order dated June 4, 2013 denying Apple’s motion to alter or amend the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 16, 2013 Apple filed its opening appeal brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Our response to the opening brief was filed on December 02, 2013, and on December 19, 2013, Apple filed its final response to complete the briefing of the court. The case is scheduled for hearing on March 03, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439), Courtroom 402.

The jury trial against Cisco was held on March 4, 2013. At the end of the trial, the jury came back with a verdict of non-infringement in the trial. The same jury determined that all our patents-in-suit patents are not invalid. On April 3, 2013, we filed a request for a new trial regarding Cisco’s infringement of four of our patents based primarily on our allegations of Cisco’s inappropriate conduct and arguments during the jury trial that concluded on March 14, 2013. In addition to the request for a new trial, we filed a motion for a judgment as a matter of law on Cisco’s infringement of the ‘759 patent. On April 11, 2013, in response to our motion, Cisco filed its renewed motion to dismiss as moot its invalidity counterclaims against the claims in our patents that were not asserted in the lawsuit as well as a conditional motion for a new trial on certain limited claims and defenses. We are awaiting the Court’s decision in this matter. A hearing on our motion for new trial and Cisco’s renewed motion to dismiss as moot its invalidity counterclaims and conditional motion for a new trial was held on June 17, 2013. We are awaiting the Court’s ruling on these motions.

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

On November 1, 2011, we initiated a lawsuit against Apple in the United States District Court, Tyler Division, pursuant to which we allege that Apple infringes one or more claims of our U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181. We seek damages and injunctive relief. On June 17, 2013 the Court granted our unopposed motion to lift the stay ordered by the Court on December 15, 2011. On June 18, 2013 the Court granted the parties unopposed motion to consolidate this case with Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00855-LED.

VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

On November 6, 2012, we filed a new complaint against Apple Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division for willfully infringing four of our patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211 and 7,490,151, and seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The accused products include the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and the latest Macintosh computers. Due to their release dates, these products were not included in the previous lawsuit that concluded with a Jury verdict on November 6, 2012 that was subsequently upheld by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, on February 26, 2013. On July 1, 2013, we filed a consolidated and amended complaint to include U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 and consolidate Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00563-LED. On August 27, 2013, we filed an amended complaint including allegations of willful infringement related to U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697 seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The Markman hearing in this case is scheduled for May 8, 2014 and the jury trial is scheduled for October 13, 2015.

One or more potential intellectual property infringement claims may also be available to us against certain other companies who have the resources to defend against any such claims. Although we believe these potential claims are worth pursuing, commencing a lawsuit can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no assurance that we will prevail on such potential claims. In addition, bringing a lawsuit may lead to potential counterclaims which may preclude our ability to commercialize our initial products, which are currently in development. Currently, we are not a party to any other pending legal proceedings, and are not aware of any proceeding threatened or contemplated against us by any governmental authority or other party.