A San Jose jury has handed up a verdict [PDF] finding that Apple does not infringe two patents owned by GPNE Corp., a patent-holding company that has licensed its patents to more than 20 other large companies.

While the jury found that Apple did not infringe a variety of patent claims, it found the two patents at issue, numbered 7,570,954 and 7,792,492, to be valid. The patents describe network communication technology, and they were issued in 2009 and 2010. Both are "continuation" patents, based upon other continuation patents, which stretch back to an original 1994 patent filing.

Essentially, the GPNE claims are from pager-era patents that the company tried to use to extract royalty payments from iPhones and iPads.

An Apple spokeswoman sent this statement about the results:

We are pleased the jury in California saw through GPNE's attempt to extort money from Apple for 20 year old pager patents that have expired, wasting time for everyone involved. GPNE is a patent troll with no active business other than patent litigation. They have sent more than 300 demand letters in the past year to everyone from truckers and farmers to roofers and dairies threatening costly legal entanglements if these small businesses didn't pay them off -- this isn't right. Apple invents products that revolutionize industries, and relies upon the U.S. patent system to protect our innovation. We urge congressional leaders to continue focusing on reform in this important area of patent law.

GPNE founder and CEO Edwin Wong referred Ars to his attorneys. "It was a hard-fought trial with a tough claim construction in a case in which our firm was hired a few months ago," said GPNE lawyer Kalpana Srinivasan via e-mail. "We strongly believe the Judge will address the underlying legal issues in post-verdict motions."

Srinivasan added that GPNE invented its own technology, and the company continues to be inventor-oriented. "The primary inventor, Gabriel Wong, is the Chairman of GPNE's Board of Directors," said Srinivasan. "He earned an electrical engineering degree from NYU in the 1960s and worked for telecommunications companies as an engineer. He came up with the invention that is the subject of the patents and attempted to commercialize it, as Apple recognized at trial."

Trolls' top target pushes back

It's no surprise that Apple is using this win to frame GPNE as an example of why the company wants patent reform. Advocates for reform were frustrated that the Senate failed to pass some version of the Innovation Act that went through the House, and some senators—including Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)—have said they're determined to bring the issue back up.

Even as it has asserted its own patents against competitors, Apple has pleaded for reform. Earlier this year, it pointed out in a Supreme Court brief that it was the top target of patent trolls, having faced 92 lawsuits over a three-year period.

The GPNE v. Apple trial began on October 6 in San Jose, and it took place over about six days spread throughout the month. It was overseen by US District Judge Lucy Koh, the same judge who oversaw both of the Apple v. Samsung litigations.

While Apple has been quick to emphasize GPNE's status as a "patent troll" post-trial, it wasn't allowed to use that term during the trial. A few months before the trial began, Koh issued a ruling making clear that Apple wouldn't be allowed to call GPNE a "troll" at trial, which got some attention.

"Apple may not refer to GPNE as a ‘patent troll,’ ‘pirate,’ ‘bounty hunter,’ ‘privateer,’ ‘bandit,’ ‘paper patent,’ ‘stick up,’ ‘shakedown,’ ‘playing the lawsuit lottery,’ ‘corporate shell game,’ or ‘a corporate shell,'" wrote Koh, whose order was reported by Forbes. "Apple may refer to GPNE as a ‘non-practicing entity,’ ‘licensing entity,’ ‘patent assertion entity,’ ‘a company that doesn’t make anything,’ or ‘a company that doesn’t sell anything.’"