Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Salesforce, Inc.

Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, "Wapp Tech") are plaintiffs in a patent infringement lawsuit against Salesforce, Inc. Wapp Tech is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) that primarily engages in patent assertion, rather than offering commercial products or services. Salesforce, Inc. is a leading cloud-based software company. The core technology at issue involves systems and methods for mobile application development and testing. Salesforce is accused of infringing through its mobile application development and debugging tools, such as the Salesforce Mobile SDK, which allows for the creation of native, hybrid, and React Native apps for iOS and Android, and related debugging functionalities that aid in building mobile-ready components.

The patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, which generally relates to systems for mobile device application development and testing. More specifically, claims of the '192 patent pertain to the development of applications for mobile devices by emulating their execution, including displaying a list of mobile device models for user selection, simulating performance characteristics of the selected device and network conditions, and monitoring resource utilization as the application runs. The patent also covers aspects related to an online marketplace for distributing applications and information. The litigation is ongoing in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:18-cv-01585. The judge presiding over this specific case is not publicly available in the provided search results. The District of Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation due to its specialized judiciary and established patent law precedents.

This case is notable as part of Wapp Tech's broader and aggressive patent assertion campaign against major technology and financial services companies, including Apple, Capital One, Wells Fargo, and Micro Focus. Wapp Tech previously secured a significant $172.5 million jury verdict against Micro Focus International, which later settled for $67.5 million. The case is also linked to a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement and invalidity concerning the same patents-in-suit, indicating a proactive defense strategy by Salesforce, which has a history of engaging in such actions, sometimes through third-party entities like RPX, to challenge asserted patents. This highlights the ongoing battle between patent assertion entities and large operating companies in the mobile software development space.

Legal Developments and Outcome in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Salesforce, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192. As of May 22, 2026, the case remains ongoing.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2018-2019)

  • Complaint Filed: Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. initiated the lawsuit against Salesforce, Inc. on October 15, 2018, in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192.
  • The case is noted as being related to a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement and invalidity concerning the same patents-in-suit. This often indicates a defensive posture or a parallel action initiated by a defendant or related entity, common in "customer suit" scenarios where an end-user is sued while a manufacturer also faces litigation. Specific details regarding Salesforce's answer or any counterclaims in this particular D. Del. case are not publicly detailed in the available search results.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

  • While specific motions filed by Salesforce in this 1:18-cv-01585 D. Del. case are not explicitly detailed in the public records available through search, Wapp Tech has been involved in other related litigations where motions to dismiss (e.g., for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim) and motions to stay (e.g., under the customer suit doctrine or pending IPRs) were significant. For example, in a related case, Seattle SpinCo and EntIT Software filed a declaratory judgment action in D. Del. concerning the same patents against Micro Focus International plc, which involved motions to dismiss. This pattern suggests similar procedural motions may have occurred in the Salesforce case, though specific outcomes are not readily available.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

  • As of May 22, 2026, no specific Markman (claim construction) order for Wapp Tech v. Salesforce, Inc. (1:18-cv-01585 D. Del.) was found in the search results.
  • However, a Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order was issued on May 1, 2026, in a separate, but related, case in the Eastern District of Texas, Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al v. Apple Inc. et al (4:25-cv-00230). This order construed terms for several patents, including US8924192. [cite: 12 from previous searches] The E.D. Tex. court noted that it had previously construed disputed terms for the same patent family in other Wapp Tech cases against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (November 19, 2024) and Bank of America, N.A. (July 6, 2022). [cite: 12 from previous searches] While not directly from the Salesforce D. Del. case, these constructions would likely be highly persuasive or potentially adopted in any future claim construction in the D. Del. litigation due to the shared patent.

• Discovery Milestones

  • Specific significant discovery milestones for this particular case are not publicly reported in the available search results.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

  • There is no information indicating that this case has proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions. The case is listed as "Ongoing."

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

  • The case remains active and "Ongoing" in the District of Delaware. No final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) has been publicly reported.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

  • IPR2025-01325: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01325, was filed by Capital One NA et al. against Wapp Tech Corp. challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192B1 on July 18, 2025. [cite: 4 from previous searches] The PTAB docket for this IPR indicates both an "Institution" date and a "Termination" date of November 20, 2025. [cite: 4 from previous searches] This typically signifies that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of the IPR, meaning the trial was not initiated. The precise effect of this IPR on the Salesforce litigation is not explicitly stated in the available public records, but a denial of institution would remove a potential ground for a stay of the district court case based on that specific IPR.

I was unable to locate specific docket entries or reliable legal news articles directly listing the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Salesforce, Inc., case number 1:18-cv-01585, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Without direct access to PACER or a comprehensive legal database that explicitly states the appearances for this particular case, I cannot definitively identify the names of the attorneys and their roles. Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for specific counsel of record.

Despite targeted web searches for counsel of record in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Salesforce, Inc., case number 1:18-cv-01585, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the specific attorneys representing Salesforce, Inc. in this particular case could not be definitively identified. Without direct access to the court's docket entries, the names of counsel who have formally appeared for Salesforce in this action are not publicly available through the conducted web searches.

While firms like Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP are recognized for their patent litigation work in the District of Delaware and have represented large technology companies in similar matters, the searches did not yield specific attorney names from these or any other firms confirmed as counsel of record for Salesforce in Wapp Tech v. Salesforce. Therefore, a detailed list of attorneys, their roles, and specific relevant experience for this case cannot be provided at this time.