Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.

Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp., identified as patent assertion entities (PAEs), initiated this patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and other Samsung entities. Wapp Tech's business involves web, mobile, and custom application development, but their notable history primarily consists of asserting patents against major corporations. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a leading global manufacturer of consumer electronics, mobile devices, and enterprise solutions, including smartphones, tablets, and related software and services. The dispute centers on 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 system and methods for emulating and profiling a mobile application in real-time on a mobile device, utilizing a model that runs on an external processor and is based on the mobile device's performance characteristics. The accused products or services from Samsung are broadly related to its mobile devices and the software/systems that facilitate mobile application development and testing, consistent with the patent's scope.

This case, 4:21-cv-00670, is currently ongoing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While a specific presiding judge for this exact case number against Samsung was not identified in the immediate search results, many patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas are overseen by judges known for their experience in patent litigation, such as Chief District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, who is presiding over a related Wapp Tech case against Apple. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent infringement lawsuits, historically favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and juries often perceived as sympathetic to patent holders. Although the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision restricted venue options for domestic corporations, plaintiffs have developed new strategies to maintain venue in the EDTX by targeting foreign affiliates.

The litigation is notable as part of Wapp Tech's broader campaign of patent assertions. The company has a history of securing significant outcomes, including a $172.5 million jury verdict against Micro Focus International PLC (later settled for $67.5 million) and undisclosed settlements with major financial institutions like Wells Fargo and Bank of America. This pattern marks Wapp Tech as an active patent monetizer, leveraging its portfolio against large technology and financial service providers. The continuous litigation against prominent industry players like Samsung, Apple, and various banks underscores the impact of NPE assertion patterns on the mobile application development and broader tech industries.

The patent infringement litigation Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00670, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is currently ongoing. The primary patent at issue is US Patent 8,924,192.

Here are the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: The case was filed in 2021. While the exact filing date for this specific Samsung case under 4:21-cv-00670 is not universally clear from all public records, similar Wapp Tech cases against other defendants with the same 4:21-cv-00670 docket number (though listing Bank of America as defendant in some sources) indicate a complaint for patent infringement was filed around August 27, 2021.
• Parties: The plaintiffs are Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. The defendants are Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.
• Patents Asserted: U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 is at issue in this litigation.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Publicly available information specifically detailing motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay filed by Samsung in this particular case (4:21-cv-00670) is limited.
• However, the case is noted to have a scheduling order in place with various deadlines in late 2025 and 2026 for discovery and claim construction. This indicates active pre-trial proceedings.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of the current date (May 22, 2026), publicly available information does not specify a Markman hearing or order issued in the Wapp Tech v. Samsung 4:21-cv-00670 case. However, the established scheduling order includes deadlines for claim construction in late 2025 and 2026, suggesting this stage is anticipated or underway.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• The scheduling order includes deadlines for discovery in late 2025 and 2026, indicating that the discovery phase is active or planned for this period.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case is currently ongoing and has not yet reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The litigation remains ongoing. There has been no final judgment, dismissal, or settlement reported for Wapp Tech v. Samsung under this docket number.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, asserted in this case, has been challenged in at least one Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• IPR2025-01325: Capital One N.A. and Capital One Services LLC filed an IPR petition against Wapp Tech Corp. concerning U.S. Patent 8,924,192 B1. The petition was filed on July 18, 2025. The PTAB's institution decision for this IPR was on November 20, 2025.
• A reply brief by Wapp Tech Corp. in this IPR, dated November 7, 2025, discussed "strong settled expectations" surrounding the '192 Patent, noting it has been "heavily commercialized" and "licensed by many entities."
• While this IPR targets the patent at issue, there is no direct public information linking Samsung as a petitioner or third-party participant in this specific IPR proceeding, nor detailing any stay of the district court litigation pending this IPR for the Samsung case.

The plaintiff, Wapp Tech Limited Partnership, is represented by attorneys from Robins Kaplan LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Name: Benjamen C. Linden

  • Role: Counsel (specific role as lead or local is not explicitly stated but he represented the plaintiff).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, office location not specified in the snippets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Represented plaintiff Wapp Tech in patent infringement litigation against Wells Fargo and Bank of America (E.D. Tex. No. 4:21-cv-00671 and 4:21-cv-00670), asserting infringement of five patents related to mobile application development and testing. He also represented a patent holder in an industry-wide enforcement campaign for patents related to video and audio compression, transmitting, and streaming systems.

• Name: David A. Prange

  • Role: Counsel (specific role as lead or local is not explicitly stated but he represented the plaintiff).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, office location not specified in the snippets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Represented plaintiff Wapp Tech in patent infringement litigation against Wells Fargo and Bank of America (E.D. Tex. No. 4:21-cv-00671 and 4:21-cv-00670), asserting infringement of five patents covering technologies relating to mobile application development and testing. He is a partner in the National IP and Technology Litigation Group at Robins Kaplan and a leader of the firm's trade secret litigation practice, handling litigation involving patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and complex contracts. He also served as counsel for defendant Sensus USA in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas involving wireless communication protocols for utility metering.

It is challenging to definitively identify the complete counsel of record for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (4:21-cv-00670) without direct access to the court's PACER docket for this specific case. However, general information regarding Wapp Tech's litigation patterns and some related case mentions provide insight into potential counsel.

Based on the available information:

• Plaintiff's Counsel (Wapp Tech): It's worth noting that David A. Prange of Robins Kaplan LLP has represented Wapp Tech as plaintiff in other patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, specifically Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Tex. No. 4:21-cv-00671) and Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Bank of America N.A. (E.D. Tex. No. 4:21-cv-00670). While this doesn't directly identify Samsung's counsel, it highlights the plaintiff's representation in parallel cases within the same court.

Without direct access to the docket for 4:21-cv-00670, specific attorneys representing Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings for such cases can be extensive, and identifying all counsel requires reviewing appearance records on the docket. It is also possible that counsel has not yet formally appeared if the case is in its very early stages or if filings are sealed.