Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Micro Focus International, PLC

This patent infringement litigation, Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Micro Focus International, PLC, involves Wapp Tech Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, and Wapp Tech Corp., a Canadian body corporate, acting as plaintiffs. Wapp Tech appears to operate as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), asserting patents related to mobile application development and testing. Defendant Micro Focus International, PLC was a British multinational software and information technology business, specializing in enterprise software for application delivery, modernization, IT operations, security, and information management. Micro Focus was acquired by OpenText in January 2023 for approximately $6 billion. The accused products and functionalities are Micro Focus's software products, specifically its mobile testing products, including LoadRunner, Performance Center, StormRunner Load, and Mobile Center, which are used for developing and testing mobile applications.

The primary patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, 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 a software authoring system that simulates various network characteristics (like bandwidth and packet loss) through a visual interface to help developers test how mobile applications perform in different network conditions. The invention aims to address the challenges mobile application developers face in testing their applications across diverse mobile devices and fluctuating wireless networks. While the initial filing mentioned only the '192 patent, Wapp Tech has, in related campaigns, asserted several other patents covering systems for mobile application development, testing, and distribution, often including network and device simulation.

The case is being litigated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.), with Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III presiding. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and faster trial schedules. This venue choice is notable, especially for NPEs like Wapp Tech, as plaintiffs have often targeted foreign corporations to bypass stricter venue requirements following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision. This case is particularly notable because Wapp Tech previously secured a $172.5 million jury verdict against Micro Focus International in March 2021, which subsequently settled for $67.5 million. This successful outcome has seemingly fueled further patent assertion campaigns by Wapp Tech against other major companies, including several large banks and Apple, alleging infringement of the same or related patents. There has also been an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenge against U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 by Capital One NA.

The patent infringement litigation Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Micro Focus International, PLC (4:18-cv-00469-ALM) has seen significant developments since its filing in 2018. The case primarily concerns allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 9,971,678 and 9,298,864, related to mobile application development and testing innovations.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2018-07-02: Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, "Wapp") filed the initial complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against Micro Focus International, PLC ("MF plc"). The complaint alleged infringement of three patents, including US Patent No. 8,924,192, through MF plc's "Mobile Product Offerings" such as LoadRunner, Performance Center, StormRunner Load, and Mobile Center software products.
• 2018-10-17: Micro Focus International, PLC filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing, among other things, that it did not make the accused software, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas, and had not been properly served.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• 2018-10-15: Two of MF plc's U.S. subsidiaries, Seattle SpinCo, Inc. and Micro Focus LLC, filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware against Wapp, seeking judgments of non-infringement and invalidity for the same patents asserted in the Texas action.
• 2019-02-07: The Texas court denied Micro Focus International, PLC's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery but granted the parties' Joint Motion to Amend.
• 2019-06-10: Wapp filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add five subsidiaries of MF plc as defendants.
• 2019-08-14 (approximate): The Texas court granted MF plc's motion to dismiss the original defendant, Micro Focus International, PLC, due to lack of personal jurisdiction. However, in the same order, the court granted Wapp leave to amend the complaint to add five of MF plc's subsidiaries (Seattle SpinCo, Inc., Micro Focus LLC, Micro Focus Interactive Israel Ltd., Micro Focus Government Solutions LLC, and Micro Focus (US) Inc.) as defendants.
• Subsequently, the newly added defendants moved to transfer the Texas action to Delaware, invoking the first-to-file rule and arguing that the Delaware action should be considered the first-filed because it was the first court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the parties. The Texas court denied this motion to transfer.
• Petitioners Seattle SpinCo, Inc. et al. then petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Eastern District of Texas to transfer the case to the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit denied this petition, noting that the Texas court had already issued its claim construction order.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2020-04-27: The Texas court issued its claim construction order (Markman order).

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• 2021-03-01 to 2021-03-05: The case proceeded to an in-person jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Mazzant, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 2021-03-08: The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wapp, finding that the defendants (collectively referred to as "Micro Focus," including Seattle SpinCo, Inc., Micro Focus LLC, Micro Focus Interactive Israel Ltd., Micro Focus Government Solutions LLC, and Micro Focus (US) Inc.) infringed Claims 1 and 2 of the '192 patent, Claims 45 and 49 of the '678 patent, and Claims 1 and 2 of the '864 patent. The jury awarded Wapp $172.5 million in damages.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Following the jury verdict, the case later settled for $67.5 million. Although the case settled, the official status is still listed as "Ongoing" in some databases as of May 2026, likely referring to related or ongoing administrative processes or other Wapp Tech cases.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• While the prompt specifically asked for IPR/PGR proceedings for US Patent No. 8,924,192, the provided search results mention "Capital One v. Wapp, IPR2025-01325" in the context of the customer suit doctrine, suggesting there might be IPRs initiated by other entities against Wapp's patents. However, there is no direct information found in the search results regarding specific IPR/PGR proceedings against US Patent No. 8,924,192 in relation to Micro Focus or its subsidiaries. The "Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System" (P-TACTS) at the USPTO can be used to search for such proceedings by patent number.The patent infringement litigation Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Micro Focus International, PLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00469-ALM, concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 and other related patents, has seen a jury trial, a substantial verdict, and a subsequent settlement.

Here is a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2018-07-02: Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, "Wapp") initiated the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged that Micro Focus International, PLC (MF plc) infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,924,192, 9,971,678, and 9,298,864 through its mobile application development and testing software products.
• 2018-10-17: MF plc filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction and arguing it did not make the accused software.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• 2018-10-15: In a related development, two U.S. subsidiaries of MF plc, Seattle SpinCo, Inc. and Micro Focus LLC, filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware, seeking rulings of non-infringement and invalidity for the same Wapp patents.
• 2019-02-07: The Texas court denied MF plc's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery and granted a Joint Motion to Amend.
• 2019-06-10: Wapp sought leave to file an amended complaint to add five MF plc subsidiaries as defendants.
• August 2019 (approx.): The Texas court granted MF plc's motion to dismiss the parent company due to lack of personal jurisdiction, but simultaneously granted Wapp leave to amend its complaint to add five of MF plc's subsidiaries as defendants. These subsidiaries included Seattle SpinCo, Inc., Micro Focus LLC, Micro Focus Interactive Israel Ltd., Micro Focus Government Solutions LLC, and Micro Focus (US) Inc.
• The newly added defendants then moved to transfer the case to the District of Delaware, citing the "first-to-file" rule given the parallel declaratory judgment action. The Texas court denied this motion, and a subsequent petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the transfer was denied by the Federal Circuit.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2020-04-27: The Texas court issued its claim construction order, a crucial step in patent litigation.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• 2021-03-01 to 2021-03-05: The case proceeded to an in-person jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Mazzant.
• 2021-03-08: The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Wapp, finding that the Micro Focus entities infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,924,192, 9,971,678, and 9,298,864. The jury awarded Wapp $172.5 million in damages.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Following the substantial jury verdict, the parties reached a settlement. The case later settled for $67.5 million. Despite the settlement, some public records still list the case as "Ongoing" as of May 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• While the record does not directly indicate any IPR/PGR proceedings specifically initiated by Micro Focus or its subsidiaries against U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, there is a mention of "Capital One v. Wapp, IPR2025-01325" in other related filings concerning the customer suit doctrine, suggesting that Wapp's patents may have been challenged by other entities at the PTAB.

The plaintiffs, Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp., are represented by Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP.

While a detailed list of individual attorneys and their specific roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel) from the firm for this specific case was not explicitly provided in the search results, the firm itself is consistently identified as counsel for the plaintiffs in this matter, which resulted in a $172 million jury verdict.

General information about the firm's presence in patent litigation can be inferred from its consistent appearance in high-value patent infringement cases. The firm, Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP, is known for its involvement in intellectual property and patent litigation.

To provide specific attorney names, roles, and office locations, a direct review of the case's docket entries for appearances would typically be required. However, based on the provided search results, the firm above is identified as the plaintiff's counsel.

Defendant Micro Focus International, PLC, along with its subsidiaries Seattle SpinCo, Inc. and Micro Focus LLC, are represented by attorneys from three law firms: Gillam & Smith LP, Maschoff Brennan, and Shelton Coburn LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Gillam & Smith LP (Marshall, Texas and Tyler, Texas)

• Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. (Partner, likely lead or co-lead counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience: A Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, Gil Gillam focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property matters. He is frequently retained by nationally known law firms and in-house counsel for his trial insights in the Eastern District of Texas and across the country. Gillam & Smith is recognized among the top busiest law firms in the country for patent litigation defendants and has conducted numerous patent jury trials.
• Andrew Thompson "Tom" Gorham (Partner, likely lead or co-lead counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience: Tom Gorham has dedicated much of his 20-year legal career to litigating patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas. He previously clerked for former Eastern District of Texas Chief Judges and was a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

Maschoff Brennan (Salt Lake City, Utah)

• L. Rex Sears, Ph.D. (Partner, likely lead counsel)
  • Firm: Maschoff Brennan, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Experience: Rex Sears primarily represents clients in complex business and intellectual property disputes, including patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright. His clients often come from technology-intensive fields like computer hardware and software, payment system security, and pharmaceuticals. He is admitted to practice in federal courts, including the United States Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
• Alexis K. Juergens (Attorney, likely lead counsel)
  • Firm: While the docket entry indicates Maschoff Brennan, her current publicly available profile lists her as an associate at Foley & Lardner LLP in Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Experience: Alexis Juergens is an intellectual property litigator, regularly representing organizations in patent, trademark, trade dress, false advertising, unfair competition, copyright, and trade secret litigation throughout the United States. She has extensive experience in forums including the International Trade Commission and focuses on formulating effective legal strategies.

Shelton Coburn LLP (Austin, Texas)

• Barry Kenneth Shelton (Partner, likely lead or co-lead counsel)
  • Firm: Shelton Coburn LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Experience: Barry Shelton is a co-founder of Shelton Coburn LLP and has over twenty-six years of experience handling hundreds of patent matters and trying cases in district courts across the U.S. and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has served as lead counsel in cases involving electrical engineering, processor and computer architecture, software, networks, and semiconductors.
• Bradley Dalton Coburn (Partner, likely lead or co-lead counsel)
  • Firm: Shelton Coburn LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Experience: Bradley Coburn litigates intellectual property cases involving patent infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, theft of trade secrets, and unfair competition. He has deep experience in the Western District of Texas and counsels clients on a range of technology and intellectual property issues.

While Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC) are prominent in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and generally, they are not listed as counsel for "THE DEFENDANTS" in the March 30, 2021 docket entry. Therefore, based on the most recent specific docket information available, these firms are not currently counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this case.