Litigation

Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Apple Inc.

Ongoing

4:25-cv-00230

Patents at issue (1)

8924192PTAB: discretionary denial

Defendants (1)

Summary

The case has a scheduling order in place with various deadlines in late 2025 and 2026 for discovery and claim construction. Unified Patents data specifically links this case number in the Eastern District of Texas to litigation involving US8924192B1.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, "Wapp Tech") have initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, before Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. Wapp Tech is characterized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) that does not offer commercial products or services, but instead asserts a portfolio of patents related to software tools for mobile application development and testing. Apple Inc., a major technology company, is accused of infringing these patents through its Xcode software and certain uses of Xcode and Android Studio in developing mobile applications. Other defendants in this case include Capital One entities and Frost Bank entities, also targeted over mobile application technology.

The asserted patent central to this case, as identified in the provided context, is US8924192, titled "Systems including network simulation for mobile application development and online marketplaces for mobile application distribution, revenue sharing, content distribution, or combinations thereof." This patent generally describes methods for emulating and profiling applications on mobile devices, including simulating network and device characteristics to determine resource utilization and performance. Beyond the '192 patent, Wapp Tech has also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,298,864; 9,971,678; 10,353,811; and 10,691,579, all broadly covering technology for mobile application development, testing, and distribution systems that incorporate network and device simulation and online marketplaces.

The case is currently ongoing, having been filed on March 6, 2025. The Eastern District of Texas is a frequent venue for patent litigation due to its history of being patentee-friendly. Notably, on May 1, 2026, Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant issued a Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order after a hearing on April 23, 2026, defining the disputed terms of the asserted patents. The court also denied Apple's motion to stay non-venue proceedings, indicating the case is moving forward despite Apple's earlier attempts to dismiss based on improper venue, which were denied as moot after Wapp Tech filed an amended complaint. This litigation is part of a broader assertion campaign by Wapp Tech, which has previously secured a significant jury verdict and subsequent settlement against Micro Focus International, PLC, and has pursued other major corporations in the technology and financial sectors, including Bank of America, Salesforce, Samsung, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Google, for similar patent claims.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

The patent infringement litigation, Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00230 in the Eastern District of Texas, involves U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, among others. The case is currently ongoing and has reached the claim construction stage.

Here is a chronological breakdown of key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed (2025-03-06): Plaintiffs Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. filed the initial complaint for patent infringement against Apple Inc., Capital One, N.A., Capital One Services, LLC, Frost Bank, and Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. The complaint alleges infringement of five patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,924,192, 9,298,864, 9,971,678, 10,353,811, and 10,691,579. Wapp Tech alleges that Apple's Xcode software, which provides tools for simulating operator-specific network conditions for mobile application testing, infringes these patents. The complaint also includes allegations of willful and indirect infringement.
  • First Amended Complaint Filed (2025-08-15): Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Apple's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Filed 2025-07-25): Apple Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint against it, arguing that venue in the Eastern District of Texas was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400.
  • Apple's Motion to Stay Non-Venue Proceedings (Filing date not specified, but adjudicated with venue motion): Apple also filed a motion to stay non-venue proceedings pending the resolution of its motion to dismiss for improper venue.
  • Denial of Apple's Motions (2026-05-01): Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying both Apple's Motion to Stay Non-Venue Proceedings and its Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue. The Court found that the motions should be denied.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • Scheduling Order: The case has a scheduling order in place with various deadlines in late 2025 and 2026 for discovery and claim construction.
  • Claim Construction Hearing (2026-04-23): The Court held a claim construction hearing to determine the proper construction of disputed claim terms across the five asserted patents.
  • Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (2026-05-01): Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant issued a Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. #167), formally construing the disputed claim terms for all asserted patents, including US8924192. This order followed the parties' submission of joint claim construction statements and briefs.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • Discovery has been ongoing in accordance with the scheduling order, which included deadlines for discovery throughout late 2025 and 2026. The denial of Apple's motion to stay non-venue proceedings in May 2026 confirmed that non-venue related discovery and proceedings would continue.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • As of May 22, 2026, the case is ongoing and has not yet reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case is active and ongoing in the Eastern District of Texas. No final disposition has been reached.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • IPR2025-01325 (US8924192): Co-defendants Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Services LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01325, against U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Wapp Tech Corp. (the Patent Owner) filed a reply to Capital One's Discretionary Denial Opposition Brief on November 7, 2025, arguing for the discretionary denial of the IPR. This IPR proceeding is ongoing.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search across multiple angles to find press coverage of this litigation.

Initial results are all court records and analytics sites. Let me search specifically for press coverage.

Let me try more targeted press-specific searches.

Press and media coverage

Short answer: I could not locate any news article about this case. Across searches on the case caption, the parties ("Wapp Tech" + Apple), the asserted patent numbers (including 8,924,192), and the accused product (Xcode) combined with terms like Law360, IPWatchdog, IAM, and "news," every result returned was a primary court record or a litigation-analytics database — CourtListener/Justia/archive.org PDFs of the docket, PACER Monitor, and automated case-summary pages. I found no reporting from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or any trade or mainstream outlet on Wapp Tech v. Apple itself. Notably, even the events that would ordinarily draw a trade-press item — the July 23, 2026 transfer order (Dkt. #218), the May 1, 2026 Markman ruling (Dkt. #167), Apple's successful ex parte reexamination requests on all five asserted patents (Dkt. #171), and the Capital One and Frost settlements (Dkt. #179, #183) — produced no coverage in anything I could retrieve. I would treat this as a genuine absence of press interest rather than a search failure, but given that I hit my search-step limit, I cannot rule out paywalled Law360/Bloomberg items that search engines do not index; a targeted Law360 or Bloomberg Law database pull is the only way to close that gap definitively.

The closest thing to "coverage" is vendor-generated analysis, which should be read as database product rather than journalism. PatSnap publishes a litigation write-up of the companion Wapp Tech v. JPMorgan Chase case (No. 4:23-cv-01137, E.D. Tex.) — not this one — in which it characterizes the five-patent family as covering "methods and systems for simulating mobile network conditions and evaluating application performance on iOS and Android platforms," frames Wapp's filing before Judge Mazzant as "a plaintiff with confidence in the venue's plaintiff-friendly reputation," and reads JPMorgan's dismissal with prejudice as a signal that "the patents may have meaningful claim scope" because no invalidity ruling was ever obtained. That is explicitly an FTO-marketing inference, not reporting, and it does not discuss Apple. Separately, Ex Parte's AI Lab hosts machine-generated summaries of the complaint and FAC in this case (including element-by-element mappings of Xcode's "Network Link Conditioner," "Devices and Simulators," and "Instruments" to the '192 and '811 claims); these are AI-restructured pleadings with no independent reporting or editorial judgment, and I would not cite them as press.

One point of corroboration worth flagging: the PACER Monitor docket for Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship v. Apple Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05216 (S.D. Cal.) independently confirms the transfer correction raised in the Defendant Representatives section — District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, Magistrate Judge Brian J. White, "Case in other court: U.S. Dist. Court, Eastern District of TX, 4:25-cv-00230-ALM," with post-transfer activity through October 2026 (status conference held 10/1/2026, informal discovery conference set 10/19/2026, Wapp's deadline to answer Apple's counterclaims extended to 10/28/2026). That also confirms the case is now proceeding on Apple's counterclaims — a development the earlier case sections, which end at the transfer, do not capture.

Practical implication for the press-monitoring section of this report: there is no media narrative to summarize or triangulate, and no reported damages figures, settlement terms, or analyst/executive commentary exist in the public record I could find. Any damages discussion for this case will have to be built from the pleadings and the damages briefing (e.g., Wapp's opposition regarding use of App Store revenues under Georgia-Pacific factor 6, in which its expert Mr. Weinstein disclaims using App Store revenues as a royalty base). If a short "media coverage" entry is required for the deliverable, the honest formulation is: no substantive press coverage identified as of 2026-10-18.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

In Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Apple Inc., the plaintiff, Wapp Tech, is represented by attorneys from several firms specializing in patent litigation. The counsel of record includes:

McKool Smith P.C.

  • John Campbell (Principal, Austin office): Focuses on patent and complex commercial litigation, with experience representing patent owners against major tech companies like Apple, Samsung, LG, and Motorola. He has been recognized among the top 250 attorneys representing patent owners by Patexia's Intelligence Report.
  • James H. Smith (Principal, New York office): Has broad litigation experience in complex commercial and antitrust litigation, with numerous plaintiff representations resulting in nine-figure settlements or verdicts. He represented Ericsson in a dispute against Apple over FRAND terms for cellular technologies, which settled after five days of jury trial.
  • Mike McKool (Founder and Chairman, Dallas office): A highly recognized trial lawyer in patent litigation, he has been named "Litigator of the Week" multiple times for securing significant patent infringement verdicts against Apple Inc., including $145.1 million and $85 million verdicts for WiLAN Inc. in cases involving voice over LTE (VoLTE) technology. McKool Smith has also secured a $506 million patent infringement verdict for PanOptis against Apple.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC

  • Johnny Ward (Name Partner, Longview, Texas office): Recognized for his work in intellectual property litigation and understanding of the Eastern District of Texas judges. He has served as local counsel on trial teams that secured multi-million dollar patent infringement wins against Apple Inc., including a $502.6 million verdict for VirnetX.
  • Wesley Hill (Name Partner, Longview, Texas office): Also recognized for his expertise in intellectual property litigation. He has helped secure multi-million dollar jury awards against Apple, including a $22 million award for Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC.

These firms are known for their extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation, particularly within the Eastern District of Texas, and have a history of achieving favorable outcomes for their clients against large technology companies.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research counsel appearances for the defendants in this case.

This is a rich docket. Notably, the search results suggest the case may have been transferred to the Southern District of California — a potential contradiction with the case metadata. Let me verify the current posture and counsel.

Critical finding: the docket shows this case was transferred to the S.D. Cal. (3:26-cv-05216) on 9/11/2026 after Judge Mazzant granted Apple's renewed venue motion. Let me verify details and pin down each defendant's counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendants

⚠️ Threshold correction before the tables

The docket does not match the case metadata or the earlier sections on one critical point. The case is no longer pending in the E.D. Tex. Apple's renewed motion to dismiss for improper venue (Dkt. #62, filed Sept. 5, 2025) was granted on July 23, 2026 (Dkt. #218: "Defendant Apple Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss … is hereby GRANTED … in the interest of justice, the above-captioned case … is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)"). Reconsideration was denied Sept. 4, 2026 (Dkt. #234), and the file was transferred Sept. 11, 2026, landing as Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship et al. v. Apple Inc. et al, No. 3:26-cv-05216 (S.D. Cal.) (District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro; Magistrate Judge Brian J. White) — CourtListener now captions the EDTX docket "Transferred to the Southern District of California."

So the earlier "Key legal developments" entry stating that the improper-venue motion and stay motion were both denied on 2026-05-01 is only half right: an order denying Apple's motion to stay (on waiver grounds, Dkt. #168) and a claim construction ruling (Dkt. #167) do appear around that time, but venue was ultimately decided for Apple and the case left the district. Counsel should be understood against that posture (i.e., the Apple team that won transfer, and the local-counsel structure that must be rebuilt in S.D. Cal.).

1. Apple Inc. — national/appellate counsel: Covington & Burling LLP

Name Role Firm / Office Note
Indranil ("Indy") Mukerji Lead attorney (CourtListener flags him "LEAD ATTORNEY") Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C. (One CityCenter, 850 10th St. NW) First-chair patent trial lawyer; ~25 yrs / ~200 patent cases; joined Covington Oct. 2024 from Willkie Farr (previously 15 yrs at Fish & Richardson); Chambers-ranked (D.C., IP Litigation Band 4); registered patent attorney. Signed Apple's filings in this case (Dkt. #73).
Ranganath Sudarshan Partner, core team Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C. Member of Apple's signing team here (Dkt. #73); Covington DC patent litigation group.
Kurt G. Calia Partner Covington & Burling LLP (California offices) Appears in the S.D. Cal. transferred-case docket as Apple counsel; Covington's West Coast patent trial bench.
Michael E. Bowlus Associate Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco (Salesforce Tower) Filed the Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #47-1), stating he is "an associate at the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, counsel for Defendant Apple Inc."; admitted in E.D. Tex.
Brianne Bharkhda (also appearing as "Brianne Bharkhda Sullivan") Associate, pro hac vice Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C. Signed Apple's filings here (Dkt. #73).
Matthew Kudzin Pro hac vice Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C. Dkt. #73 signatory for Apple.
John Y. Veiszlemlein Pro hac vice Listed at 850 Tenth St. NW, Washington, D.C. (Covington's DC address); phone 484-838-9320 is a Pennsylvania prefix Signed Dkt. #73 for Apple. Verification caveat: I could not confirm his firm affiliation from a firm roster — treat the Covington attribution as based on the address block in the filing, not independently confirmed.
Jia Hui Jiang Associate Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C. Listed as Apple counsel on the S.D. Cal. transferred docket.

Unexplained discrepancy (flag): PacerMonitor's S.D. Cal. parties page lists "Indranil Mukerji — Fish & Richardson," while the E.D. Tex. filings, CourtListener's parties page, Chambers, and cov.com all place him at Covington. Most likely a PacerMonitor data artifact (Mukerji spent 15 years at Fish & Richardson before 2019) rather than a move; I could not confirm a 2026 firm change. Do not rely on the Fish & Richardson attribution without pulling his S.D. Cal. appearance.

2. Apple Inc. — E.D. Texas local counsel: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall/Longview, TX)

Name Role Firm Note
Melissa Richards Smith Local counsel Gillam & Smith LLP, 303 S. Washington Ave., Marshall, TX Signed Apple's July 25, 2025 motion papers (Dkt. #44); long-standing EDTX local counsel for Apple and other national defendants; the address of record for Apple in this district.
McKellar L. Karr Local counsel (later appearance, Dec. 22, 2025) Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX Notice of Attorney Appearance for Apple Inc. entered 12/22/2025; also appears on the S.D. Cal. transferred docket.

3. Apple Inc. — additional 2026 appearances (venue/transfer phase)

Name Role Firm Note
Hannah Lynn Cannom Counsel for Apple (appearance Jan. 14, 2026) Walker Stevens Cannom LLP (Los Angeles) California patent-litigation boutique; adds West Coast/venue capability.
Bethany M. Stevens Counsel for Apple (appearance Jan. 14, 2026) Walker Stevens Cannom Yang LLP Same boutique; appears alongside Cannom.
Andrew Thompson ("Tom") Gorham Counsel appearing for Apple Inc., Capital One N.A., and Capital One Services LLC (appearance Jan. 13, 2026) Firm not verified — I could not confirm his firm from the sources retrieved A shared appearance across Apple and the Capital One defendants suggests coordination on a common issue (venue/discovery). Flagging as unresolved rather than guessing.
David Folsom and David Keyzer Listed on the S.D. Cal. transferred docket (Keyzer shown as "Unknown"/non-party related to OpenText on the Justia index) Folsom = former Chief Judge, E.D. Tex. (Jackson Walker-era practice); Keyzer = Keyzer Law, El Dorado Hills, CA (per docket address) Role in this case unverified. Their presence in the S.D. Cal. listing is not enough to state they represent Apple. Do not attribute without the appearance document.

4. Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Services, LLC — Latham & Watkins LLP

Name Role Firm / Office Note
Brian Yong Kim Counsel Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco Named for Capital One on the CourtListener parties page.
Gabriel K. Bell Pro hac vice Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C. Signed the July 25, 2025 motion papers in this case (Dkt. #44).
John Kellum Svendsen Pro hac vice Latham & Watkins LLP, New York Dkt. #44 signatory; Latham IP litigation.
Matthew J. Moore Counsel Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C. Named for Capital One on the parties page.
Rachel L. Cohen Counsel Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C. Dkt. #44 signatory.
Tiffany Chantel Weston Counsel Latham & Watkins LLP (office not confirmed on the retrieved page) Named for Capital One on the parties page.
Raghav Bajaj (Reg. No. 66,630) PTAB counsel for Capital One in IPR2025-01325 (the '192 patent) Latham & Watkins LLP, 300 Colorado Ave., Austin, TX Signed Capital One's authorized reply to Wapp's POPR (Nov. 18, 2025). Lead PTAB-side name for the co-defendants' IPR.

5. Frost Bank and Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. — Baker Botts LLP (Dallas)

Name Role Firm / Office Note
Christa Joyce Brown-Sanford Counsel Baker Botts LLP, 2001 Ross