Two days after winning a $105.75 million jury verdict against the software giant, VirnetX has filed a new complaint claiming Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 infringe those patents as well. Those products hadn’t yet been released when VirnetX first went after Microsoft, so the company is now circling back, hoping to collect damages for their alleged infringement.

“This is a tactical and procedural post-trial action to ensure and protect our property rights as we proceed to final resolution with Microsoft,” Kendall Larsen, VirnetX president and CEO, wrote in a March 18 statement.

Microsoft (MSFT) has vowed to appeal the first verdict, which it described as “legally and factually unsupported,” and took a similarly dim view of the latest VirnetX assault. “Microsoft respects intellectual property, and we believe our products do not infringe the patents involved,” Microsoft flack Kevin Kutz told the Seattle Post Intelligencer. “Moreover, we believe those patents are invalid. We will challenge VirnetX’s claims.”

To that end, the company has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine the VirnetX patents, evidently with some success. In a preliminary review, the USPTO has found all but one of the VirnetX claims invalid. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be rejected, but for Microsoft, it’s a step in the right direction.

This morning, the research and development company filed suit against nearly two dozen companies, accusing them of violating two of its patents–U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, the same one Microsoft allegedly ran afoul of, and No. 7,599,985, an extension of the 906 patent that covers embedded apps using AJAX. Among the companies named in the suit: Adobe (ADBE), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), eBay (EBAY), Google (GOOG)–including YouTube–Sun (JAVA) and Yahoo (YHOO).

“All we want is what’s fair,” Eolas Chairman Dr. Michael Doyle said in a statement. “We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else’s innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair.”

Sadly, “what’s fair” in this case threatens the very fabric of the Web, as Tim Berners-Lee, the computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web argued back in 2003 when Eolas was pursuing Microsoft (MSFT). “The ’906 patent will cause cascades of incompatibility to ripple through the Web,” Berners-Lee said in an appeal to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “[It] is a substantial setback for global interoperability and the success of the open Web.”

In 2007, Google (GOOG) applied for its own mark on Android, the name for its open-source mobile phone operating system, and was rejected on the grounds that it was too similar to Specht’s. Google went ahead and debuted the OS with the Android name anyway, and now Specht is suing the company. In a complaint filed in a Chicago federal court, Specht claims that Google’s use of the term will deceive and confuse customers. He asks the court to bar Google from using the name and demands $2 million in damages for its misstep. Google, says Specht, “stole first and asked questions later.”

Google, for its part, disagrees. The company clearly views the suit as opportunistic and says it has no intention of paying that $2 million penalty. It says the trademark, Android Data, hasn’t been used in at least three years and that Android Data Corporation has been dissolved. It argues there can be no confusion between the two names. “We believe the claims are without merit and we plan on defending them vigorously,” a spokesperson said. “We have no interest in settling this case.”

In 2007, Google (GOOG) applied for its own mark on Android, the name for its open-source mobile phone operating system, and was rejected on the grounds that it was too similar to Specht’s. Google went ahead and debuted the OS with the Android name anyway, and now Specht is suing the company. In a complaint filed in a Chicago federal court, Specht claims that Google’s use of the term will deceive and confuse customers. He asks the court to bar Google from using the name and demands $2 million in damages for its misstep. Google, says Specht, “stole first and asked questions later.”

Google, for its part, disagrees. The company clearly views the suit as opportunistic and says it has no intention of paying that $2 million penalty. It says the trademark, Android Data, hasn’t been used in at least three years and that Android Data Corporation has been dissolved. It argues there can be no confusion between the two names. “We believe the claims are without merit and we plan on defending them vigorously,” a spokesperson said. “We have no interest in settling this case.”

And that’s a conclusion that makes perfect sense, as cloud computing consultant Sam Johnston notes. Said Johnston, “… Few of us think ‘Dell’ when we think of ‘cloud computing’, even in this context.”

And that’s a conclusion that makes perfect sense, as cloud computing consultant Sam Johnston notes. Said Johnston, “… Few of us think ‘Dell’ when we think of ‘cloud computing’, even in this context.”