       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

                   VIRNETX INC.,
                      Appellant

                           v.

                    APPLE INC.,
                       Appellee
                ______________________

      2016-1211, 2016-1213, 2016-1279, 2016-1281
               ______________________

   Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
IPR2014-00403,     IPR2014-00404,     IPR2014-00481,
IPR2014-00482.
               ______________________

              Decided: December 9, 2016
               ______________________

   JOSEPH PALYS, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for appellant. Also represented by NAVEEN MODI,
DANIELLE RUTH ACKER SUSANJ, IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV,
DANIEL ZEILBERGER.

   JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NATHAN S.
MAMMEN; JEFFREY PAUL KUSHAN, Sidley Austin LLP,
Washington, DC.
2                                 VIRNETX INC.   v. APPLE INC.



                 ______________________

Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
    This appeal concerns the validity of VirnetX Inc.’s
(“VirnetX”) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,188,180 (“the ’180 patent”)
and 7,987,274 (“the ’274 patent), disclosing technology for
establishing secure communication over networks. Apple
Inc. (“Apple”) challenged claims of the ’274 patent in two
inter partes review proceedings, which were consolidated
with IPR2014-00403 (“the 403 proceeding”) and IPR2014-
00404 (“the 404 proceeding”) initiated by Microsoft Corpo-
ration on similar grounds. Apple relied principally on
U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino (“Provino”) and
Takahiro Kiuchi & Shigekoto Kaihara, C-HTTP – The
Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on
the Internet (Feb. 1996) (“Kiuchi”), respectively, for each
proceeding. Apple also challenged claims of the ’180
patent in two inter partes review proceedings, IPR2014-
00481 (“the 481 proceeding”) and IPR2014-00482 (“the
482 proceeding”), again relying principally on Provino and
Kiuchi, respectively. VirnetX now appeals to this court.
    After full review of the record and careful considera-
tion, we find no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board’s (“the Board”) claim constructions or findings in
the 403 and 481 proceedings. For the reasons given by
the Board therein, we find the challenged claims un-
patentable over Provino and the additional prior art cited.
We do not, therefore, need to reach the merits of the
Board’s decisions in the 404 and 482 proceedings.
                      AFFIRMED
