Litigation

Wapp Tech LP et al. v. Micro Focus International PLC et al.

settled/dismissed with prejudice

4:18-cv-00469

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: E.D. Tex. (Sherman Div.), Judge Mazzant
Filed: 2018-07-02

Patents at issue (3)

8924192 PTAB: discretionary denial

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (6)

Summary

Jury verdict for Wapp on 2021-03-05 found willful infringement of the '192, '864, and '678 patents; $172,554,269.00 damages. Settled Sept. 2021 and dismissed with prejudice Nov. 2021.

Case overview & background

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 9298864-4-18-cv-00469 · edit in Admin

Further reading

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
§ 285 attorney-fee shifting in practice
§ 285 isn't a guaranteed remedy. It's a high-effort, high-evidence tool that pays off occasionally and dramatically — turning a $3M defense expense into a $3M plaintiff bill.
What is a patent troll?
Patent trolls are companies whose business is suing other companies. They make nothing, sell nothing, and add nothing — they collect old patents and use them to extract settlements from companies that actually do things.
Patent term and expiration
Patents don't last forever. They don't even reliably last 20 years. The expiration date that actually matters depends on the earliest filing date, the maintenance schedule, and any USPTO or FDA delays the patent owner can claim back.

All resources →