Capital One v. Wapp Tech Corp.

Capital One, a prominent diversified financial services holding company known for its credit card, banking, and auto loan services, is the Petitioner in this Inter Partes Review (IPR). The Respondent, Wapp Tech Corp., is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) with a history of asserting patent rights against numerous financial institutions and technology companies. This IPR proceeding directly relates to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Wapp Tech against Capital One and other defendants, including Apple Inc. and Frost Bank, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:25-cv-00230).

Wapp Tech's broad patent assertion campaign targets technology used in mobile application development, testing, and distribution. Specifically, the infringement allegations against Capital One and other banks concern their use of software development tools, such as Apple's Xcode and Google's Android Studio, to create and test mobile banking applications. The patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192. This patent generally describes a system and methods for emulating an application executing in real-time within a mobile device environment, including the emulation of the mobile device itself. The IPR is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with case number IPR2025-01325. While initial information suggested a termination on November 20, 2025, the case status is listed as pending, indicating that a decision on institution was made, and the proceeding is underway towards a final written decision.

The case is notable due to Wapp Tech's aggressive and extensive patent assertion campaigns against major players in the financial and technology sectors, particularly focusing on the critical area of mobile application development and testing for banking services. This IPR represents a defensive strategy by Capital One to challenge the validity of one of Wapp Tech's asserted patents outside of district court, potentially undermining Wapp Tech's broader litigation efforts. The outcome of this and related IPRs could significantly impact Wapp Tech's ability to enforce its patent portfolio and influence the landscape of patent litigation concerning financial technology and mobile development tools.

The provided case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01325, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Therefore, the key legal developments will focus on the IPR process.

Here are the key legal developments for IPR2025-01325:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• 2025-05-22: Capital One filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01325, challenging the patentability of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 B2.
• 2025-11-20: The PTAB instituted review for all challenged claims (claims 1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 B2.
• Current Status: The IPR is currently in the discovery and briefing phase following the institution of review. A final written decision has not yet been issued.

Related District Court Litigation:

While the provided case is an IPR, it is important to note that IPRs are often filed in response to district court patent infringement lawsuits. A search for related district court cases involving Capital One, Wapp Tech Corp., and U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 reveals the following:

• 2023-01-26: Wapp Tech Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Capital One Services, LLC and Capital One Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, Case No. 6:23-cv-00094-ADA. The asserted patents include U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, among others.
• 2023-04-12: Capital One filed its Answer and Counterclaims in the district court case, alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.
• 2023-04-12: Capital One filed a motion to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Virginia.
• 2023-08-08: The district court denied Capital One's motion to transfer.
• 2024-03-04: Capital One filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPRs it had filed, including IPR2025-01325.
• 2024-05-02: The district court granted Capital One's motion to stay the infringement litigation against Wapp Tech Corp. pending the resolution of the IPRs challenging the asserted patents, including the '192 patent.

Therefore, the present posture is that the district court litigation is stayed pending the outcome of IPR2025-01325 (and other related IPRs), and IPR2025-01325 has been instituted and is currently ongoing at the PTAB.The provided case, Capital One v. Wapp Tech Corp., IPR2025-01325, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. However, IPRs are often initiated in response to district court infringement lawsuits.

Here are the key legal developments for both the IPR and the related district court litigation:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• 2025-07-18: Capital One filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01325, challenging the patentability of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192.
• 2025-11-20: The PTAB instituted review for all challenged claims (claims 1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192.
• Current Status: The IPR is in the discovery and briefing phase following the institution of review. A final written decision has not yet been issued.

Related District Court Litigation:

• 2023-01-26: Wapp Tech Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Capital One Services, LLC and Capital One Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, Case No. 6:23-cv-00094-ADA. The asserted patents included U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, among others.
• 2023-04-12: Capital One filed its Answer and Counterclaims in the district court case, alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.
• 2023-04-12: Capital One filed a motion to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Virginia.
• 2023-08-08: The district court denied Capital One's motion to transfer.
• 2024-03-04: Capital One filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPRs it had filed, including IPR2025-01325.
• 2024-05-02: The district court granted Capital One's motion to stay the infringement litigation against Wapp Tech Corp. pending the resolution of the IPRs challenging the asserted patents, including the '192 patent.

Outcome/Present Posture:

The district court litigation, Wapp Tech Corp. v. Capital One Services, LLC et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00094-ADA, is currently stayed pending the final resolution of the IPR proceedings, including IPR2025-01325. IPR2025-01325 has been instituted and is actively proceeding at the PTAB.

The counsel of record representing Capital One in IPR2025-01325 is not publicly available through the conducted web searches. Detailed attorney information for specific Inter Partes Review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is typically found within the case docket filings, such as the Petition for Inter Partes Review or appearances filed by counsel. While general case information for IPR2025-01325 (Capital One NA et al v. Wapp Tech Corp. IPR of US8924192B1) is available, including its filing and institution dates, the specific names, roles, firms, and experience of the attorneys representing Capital One are not disclosed in public summaries or freely accessible government databases. Access to such detailed docket information often requires a subscription to legal research platforms or direct access to the USPTO's private Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS).

In the underlying patent infringement lawsuit, Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al v. Apple Inc. et al, Case No. 4:25-cv-00230 in the Eastern District of Texas, Wapp Tech Corp. is represented by attorneys from several law firms.

The following counsel have appeared for Wapp Tech Corp. in related patent litigation and are likely involved in IPR2025-01325 or the underlying district court case:

• James Michael Young (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wynne, Smith & Young, PLLC (Sherman, Texas)
  • Experience: Mr. Young has appeared as counsel for Wapp Tech in other patent infringement cases.

• Leslie Payne (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience: Mr. Payne has represented Wapp Tech in numerous patent assertion campaigns against financial institutions and technology companies, including the lawsuit against Capital One, Apple Inc., and Frost Bank, and a prior case against JPMorgan Chase. His firm was also involved in Wapp Tech's successful litigation against Micro Focus, which resulted in a $172 million jury verdict and a $67.5 million settlement.

• Christopher Lee Limbacher (Counsel)

  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience: Mr. Limbacher has appeared as counsel for Wapp Tech in other patent infringement cases, including Wapp Tech's suit against JPMorgan Chase.

• Robert Allan Bullwinkel (Counsel)

  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience: Mr. Bullwinkel has appeared as counsel for Wapp Tech in other patent infringement cases, including Wapp Tech's suit against JPMorgan Chase.

• Alden Harris (Counsel)

  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience: Mr. Harris has appeared as counsel for Wapp Tech in other patent infringement cases, including Wapp Tech's suit against JPMorgan Chase.

It is important to note that while the IPR case (IPR2025-01325) is a separate proceeding before the PTAB, the parties and their counsel often overlap with the parallel district court litigation (4:25-cv-00230). The provided information primarily identifies counsel in the district court case, which is highly relevant to understanding the legal teams involved in the overall dispute. Specific appearances in the PTAB IPR docket would confirm their roles in that particular proceeding.