> 'Apple "argued that VirnetX is improperly trying to secure an overly broad injunction so that it can be used to extract a massive licensing fee," Law360 reported.'
That's the usual dance. Normally, a non-practicing patent owner such as VirnetX would FAR prefer to have the infringement continue, and thus get a bigger payday, than to have the court order the defendant (Apple) to stop the infringement. So, the patent owner pushes hard for just such a shut-down order, to try to bulldoze the defendant into settling. Outside observers would be forgiven for thinking that there's a certain element of "playing chicken" involved. To a first approximation, this seems to be pretty much what happened in the NTP v. Blackberry case ten years ago. [0] [1]