US 10353811

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit appeal activity and confirm the litigation posture.

US Patent 10,353,811 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the specific number 10353811 (treating it literally, not auto-correcting to the more common 8-digit format 10,353,811). Results returned only matches for US 10,353,811 B2. No sibling-number results were substituted.

---

Bibliographic Data

Continuity chain (per the '811 specification's Cross-Reference section): continuation of 14/581,475 → 13/673,692 (issued as 8,924,192) → 12/759,543 (issued as 8,332,203) → 11/449,958 (issued as 7,813,910) → provisional 60/689,101. Per E.D. Tex. claim-construction briefing, the '192, '678, and '811 patents are continuations of the '910 patent sharing essentially the same specification, and the '811 patent incorporates the '192 patent specification (see '811 at 1:7–19).

---

Abstract (as issued)

"A system and methods to emulate an application executing in real time in a mobile device. The mobile device is emulated in real time using a model running on a processor extrinsic to the mobile device. The model is based on characteristics indicative of performance of the mobile device. The application is executed in real time within the model and the application executing in the model is monitored to determine resource utilization information by the application for the mobile device. The resource utilization information for the mobile device is displayed."

---

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

The patent has 30 claims. The independent claims are 1, 9, 15, and 22. (⚠️ Uncertainty flag: the retrieved full text truncates mid-claim 28, so I cannot verify whether claim 30 is also independent; the reexamination order lists claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 as having been "independent claims" as originally filed in the '330 application — a numbering that changed before issuance. Treat the issued independent-claim set as 1, 9, 15, 22 pending confirmation of claims 29–30.)

Claim 1 — Computer-readable medium for developing a mobile application

A software product that causes a computer to:

1. Display a selectable list of mobile device models, each with characteristics of the corresponding device;
2. Simulate device characteristics for the selected model;
3. Simulate network characteristics for the network the selected device can operate on;
4. Monitor multiple resource utilisations over time while the application runs;
5. Simultaneously display two or more graphical images of resource utilisation, each image for a different resource; and
6. Correlate a specific displayed resource's utilisation at a given time back to the application functions responsible for it.

Essence: a development tool that emulates a chosen handset plus a simulated network, profiles several resources at once, shows them side-by-side in synch, and attributes spikes to particular code functions.

Claim 9 — Computer-readable medium (device targeting variant)

Similar architecture, framed around targeting rather than selecting: display a list of mobile devices to target; model characteristics of the targeted device; monitor multiple resources over time; simultaneously display two or more time-synched graphical images, one per resource, as the app runs; and identify the functions responsible for a given resource's utilisation at a given time. (Note: claim 9 does not itself recite network simulation — that appears in dependent claim 12.)

Claim 15 — Computer-readable medium (remote download variant)

Display a list of mobile device types; simulate characteristics of the selected type; initiate downloading of at least one characteristic from a remote server; monitor multiple resources over time; display graphical image(s) of resource utilisation; and identify areas of code responsible for a specific displayed resource's utilisation at a given time. The remote-server download and the "areas of code" identification are the distinctive additions here.

Claim 22 — Computer-readable medium (enumerated-characteristics variant)

Simulate mobile-device characteristics, where the characteristics are expressly enumerated (processor type, processor speed, storage access speed, RAM size, storage size, display width, display height, pixel depth, processor availability, RAM availability, storage availability); monitor multiple resources over time, where monitored resources include at least processor usage and RAM usage; display graphical image(s) of resource utilisation; correspond a specific displayed resource's utilisation at a given time to the responsible application functions; and initiate transmission of the application to one or more physical versions of the mobile device.

Essence: the "narrowest" independent claim — it recites the specific device-characteristic parameter list (mirroring Table 1 of the specification) and adds physical deployment of the app to real hardware.

Common inventive core across all four independents: (a) device emulation from stored performance characteristics; (b) multi-resource, over-time profiling during execution; (c) graphical visualisation; and (d) attribution of resource consumption to specific application functions/code areas. Dependent claims add network-characteristic simulation and bandwidth (5, 12, 19, 24), geographic-region-based network characteristics (7, 21, 27), derived-from-live-wireless-network data (6, 13, 20, 25), simulated network events and user-behaviour scripts (8, 14, 26), and simultaneous multi-resource display (18, 28).

---

Litigation and Post-Grant Activity

Federal Circuit — no 2026 appeal found for this patent

I found no CAFC docket, appeal, or opinion in 2026 for US 10,353,811. Search results for 2026 Federal Circuit activity returned unrelated patents (e.g., 10,894,503; 8,958,853; the Rideshare patents). My searches for Wapp Tech + Federal Circuit 2026 returned only district-court filings. I cannot confirm any Federal Circuit appeal of the '811 patent as of April 26, 2026 — if one exists, it is not surfaced by available public sources.

District court (assertion history)

• Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship et al. v. Bank of America / Wells Fargo, Nos. 4:21-cv-00670 / 4:21-cv-00671 (E.D. Tex., filed 2021) — '811 asserted alongside 8,924,192, 10,691,579, 9,298,864, 9,971,678.
• Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 4:23-cv-01137 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 22, 2023; now shown as Closed). Accused functionality: profiling/instrumentation tools in Apple Xcode and Google Android Studio (Instruments, performance monitors, Network Link Conditioner). At least claim 1 asserted.
• Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship et al. v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 4:25-cv-00230-ALM (E.D. Tex. Sherman Div., filed 2025) — ongoing in 2026 (claim construction briefs March 2026; Markman hearing April 23, 2026; mediation suspended June 4, 2026). Defendants include Apple, Capital One, and Cullen/Frost/Frost Bank.
• Also a 2025 S.D. Cal. filing (3:24-cv-02256) appears in Google Patents' litigation family links.

Ex parte reexamination — 90/016,030 (granted 2026)

A third-party requester ("3PR") filed March 6, 2026, and the Office issued a Decision on Request for Ex Parte Reexamination finding a substantial new question of patentability. Scope: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, and 24 are reexamined; claims 3, 6–8, 10–21, 23, and 25–30 are NOT reexamined. Signed by Primary Examiner Michael Roswell, Art Unit 3992. The document was filed as an exhibit (Doc. 171-4, May 8, 2026) in the 4:25-cv-00230 Apple case.

Other

• Unified Patents ran a prior-art bounty contest on the '811 patent (prize $2,000, ended ~2022).
• A related later Wapp filing, US 11,886,323 ("Systems including network simulating for mobile application development," app. 16/908,322), is listed as withdrawn per the USPTO withdrawn list, and cites the '811 patent.

---

Confidence and Uncertainty Statement

• High confidence: bibliographic data, abstract, claim text, continuity chain, and the reexamination scope — all taken directly from the authoritative full patent text supplied and corroborated by search results.
• Uncertainty: (1) Whether claims 29–30 include a fifth independent claim cannot be verified from the truncated text. (2) The issued-claim independent set (1, 9, 15, 22) differs from the "as-filed" set referenced in the reexamination order (1, 9, 16, 24), reflecting prosecution amendments — do not conflate the two. (3) No Federal Circuit 2026 docket for this patent was found; absence of evidence here is not proof of absence, and Lexis/PACER/CAFC docket confirmation would be needed for a definitive statement. (4) The "anticipated expiration June 9, 2026" entry is Google Patents' assumption-based term calculation, not a legal conclusion, and pre-AIA vs. post-AIA term treatment for this continuation chain should be verified against the patent's face.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10,353,811.

Let me gather more detail on each case and check for others.

Let me verify a few specifics, including the Stanford NPE database record and any PTAB/reexam proceedings.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811

Patent identified: U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 ("System for developing and testing a mobile application"), issued July 16, 2019, application No. 15/979,330, filed May 14, 2018, earliest priority June 10, 2005. Owner/assignee: Wapp Tech Corp. (Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. are the co-plaintiffs). The '811 patent is one of a five-patent family (the '192, '864, '678, '811, and '579 patents) all tracing to U.S. Patent No. 7,813,910.

I confirmed the following cases. Note: I did not find any appellate (CAFC) decision specific to the '811 patent; the cases below all resolved or are pending at the district-court level.

---

1. Wapp Tech LP & Wapp Tech Corp. v. Bank of America, N.A. (and related entities)

• Plaintiff(s): Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp.
• Defendant(s): Bank of America, N.A.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division), Judge Amos L. Mazzant
• Case No.: 4:21-cv-00670-ALM
• Filed: August 27, 2021
• Patents asserted: the '811 patent among the five-family patents ('192, '864, '678, '811, '579)
• Outcome/Status: Resolved by confidential settlement; case dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 159, E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2023). The court had previously issued a claim-construction order covering all five patents (Dkt. 110, E.D. Tex. July 6, 2022).

2. Wapp Tech LP & Wapp Tech Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Plaintiff(s): Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp.
• Defendant(s): Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division), Judge Amos L. Mazzant
• Case No.: 4:21-cv-00671-ALM
• Filed: August 27, 2021
• Patents asserted: the '811 patent among the five-family patents
• Outcome/Status: Resolved by confidential settlement; case dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 138, E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022). Claim-construction order at Dkt. 96 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2022) addressed the '811 patent (e.g., agreed construction of "simulate"/"emulate" for '811 Claims 1, 8, 22, 24).

3. Wapp Tech LP & Wapp Tech Corp. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

• Plaintiff(s): Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp.
• Defendant(s): JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Amos L. Mazzant
• Case No.: 4:23-cv-01137-ALM
• Filed: December 22, 2023
• Patents asserted: the '811 patent among the five-family patents
• Outcome/Status: Claim construction at Dkt. 80 (Nov. 19, 2024); case dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (Dkt. 95, E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2025) following a confidential settlement. No merits (validity/infringement) ruling.

4. Wapp Tech LP & Wapp Tech Corp. v. Apple Inc.; Capital One, N.A.; Capital One Services, LLC; Frost Bank; Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. — currently pending

• Plaintiff(s): Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp.
• Defendant(s): Apple Inc.; Capital One, N.A.; Capital One Services, LLC; Frost Bank; Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division), Judge Amos L. Mazzant
• Case No.: 4:25-cv-00230-ALM
• Filed: March 6, 2025 (Original Complaint; First Amended Complaint filed August 15, 2025)
• Patents asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,924,192; 9,298,864; 9,971,678; 10,353,811; and 10,691,579
• Asserted products: Apple's Xcode software, and use of Xcode / Google's Android Studio
• Status:
  • Motions to dismiss (Apple under Rule 12(b)(3) venue; Capital One, Frost/Cullen-Frost under 12(b)(6)) were denied as moot after the amended complaint (Order dated Aug. 22, 2025).
  • Claim-construction Memorandum Opinion and Order issued covering all five patents-in-suit (Dkt. #167).
  • Apple filed ex parte reexamination requests against all asserted patents; per Apple's notice, the USPTO granted ex parte reexamination of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, and 24 of the '811 patent on April 21, 2026.
  • Case remains active/pending (no final merits ruling).

5. Related/ancillary proceeding — Wapp Tech LP & Wapp Tech Corp. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal.)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
• Case No.: 3:24-cv-02256 (originally assigned to Judge Benitez; reassigned to Judge Schopler)
• Filed: December 3, 2024
• Nature: Not a standalone infringement suit; a motion to enforce an out-of-district subpoena (directed to a third party, Mitek) arising from the Eastern District of Texas JPMorgan action. Wapp withdrew the motion, and the court dismissed the action on January 22, 2025. This matter appears in the patent's litigation record (Google Patents family-litigation listing) but the '811 patent was not independently adjudicated here.

---

Important caveats and non-litigation items

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists the '811 patent as involved in the Wapp cases above; the Unified Patents Patroll program ran a prior-art bounty on the '811 patent (contest closed July 15, 2022) noting it "has been asserted against Wells Fargo and Bank of America." A prior-art contest is not litigation.
• No CAFC appeal on the '811 patent specifically was found; the district-court cases settled (or are pending), so no Federal Circuit merits decision exists on this patent.
• Earlier WAPP I ("Micro Focus") litigation (Wapp Tech v. Seattle Spinco, Inc., et al., Nos. 4:18-cv-00469/501/519, E.D. Tex.) did not involve the '811 patent — that suit (filed July 2, 2018) only asserted the '192, '864, and '678 patents, and the '811 patent did not issue until July 16, 2019.
• No IPR (inter partes review) of the '811 patent was located; the only USPTO proceeding found is the ex parte reexamination granted April 21, 2026 (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, 24) in connection with the pending Apple/Capital One/Frost case.

Date note: My search returned some documents bearing dates (May 1 and May 8, 2026) that are slightly after the stated current date of April 26, 2026. I am reporting them as found rather than adjusting them, per the instruction to treat search results as ground truth; you may wish to independently confirm the most recent docket entries via PACER (E.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-00230-ALM) and the PTAB/USPTO reexamination record.

Primary sources:

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10353811
• Unified Patents Patroll contest — https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/JaEzGFBeFBneRwkgT
• Unified Patents litigation caselist — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=10353811
• CourtListener / Justia dockets for 4:21-cv-00670, 4:21-cv-00671, 4:23-cv-01137, 4:25-cv-00230, and 3:24-cv-02256
• Google Patents family-litigation listing for US10353811B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10353811](/patent/US10353811)/en

If you need, I can attempt to pull the specific PACER docket text for any one of these cases to pin down exact filing/dismissal dates and the operative outcome language.

I'll research PTAB activity on this patent before drafting. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into possible IPRs filed by Bank of America, Wells Fargo, or others.

Let me check specifically for any AIA trials on the '811 patent and the Wapp Tech IPR family.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 ("System for developing and testing a mobile application")

Canonical source note: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this task reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,353,811. That is the authoritative list, and I have honored it. Web search surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '811 patent as the challenged patent. What the search did surface is (a) unrelated activity on sibling patents in the same family and (b) an ex parte reexamination of the '811 — neither of which is an AIA trial. Those are reported separately and clearly labeled below.

---

Proceedings overview

AIA trial count on US 10,353,811: zero. No IPRs instituted, none denied, no claims canceled or sustained by the Board, no settlements, and no FWDs or Federal Circuit appeals — because no petition was ever filed against this patent. A defendant therefore has no PTAB-based invalidity win to lean on and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to inherit; the '811 patent has simply never been tested at the PTAB. The absence is itself notable given how aggressively the family has been asserted (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, and Apple/Capital One/Frost), and given that a defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) ran a prior-art bounty on claim 1 and Apple obtained an ex parte reexamination of core '811 claims — i.e., challengers have attacked this family, just not through the AIA-trial track on this particular patent.

---

Proceedings on US 10,353,811

None on file. There are no proceeding blocks to populate. I will not manufacture IPR/PGR/CBM numbers; nothing in the ODP data or in web results supports one.

---

Adjacent activity you must not conflate with an '811 AIA trial

These are real and relevant to a defense strategy, but none is an AIA trial proceeding against the '811 patent. Don't let anyone characterize them as such.

IPR2025-01325 — Capital One, N.A. v. Wapp Tech Corp. (sibling patent '192, NOT the '811)

• Type: Inter Partes Review — but of U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192, not the '811 patent.
• Filed: 2025-07-18 (Capital One's Petition, Paper 2).
• Status: Not confirmed from the sources retrieved; a Patent Owner Preliminary Response and an authorized Petitioner Reply were on the record, so the proceeding advanced past the POPR stage. Institution outcome not verified here.
• Grounds (as reflected in the parties' papers): Validity challenge to claims of the '192 patent, including claim 60 (a "software authoring platform" claim), with a product-by-process construction dispute. Art and statutory basis not fully captured.
• Defensive value for an '811 defendant: Indirect. It shows a sophisticated defendant (Capital One) chose to attack the family at the PTAB — but on the '192, not the '811. It is not a vehicle for estoppel against the '811, and any outcome applies to the '192 only. Source: PTAB E2E petition papers (Capital One reply citing IPR2025-01325, Paper 2 at 50).

Ex parte reexamination of the '811 patent — Apple Inc. (reexam, NOT an AIA trial)

• Type: Ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. § 302 — an Office proceeding, not an IPR/PGR/CBM. There is no petitioner/patent-owner trial, no PTAB panel, no FWD.
• Filed / granted: Apple requested ex parte reexamination of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, and 24 of the '811 patent; the notice states the USPTO granted the request in April 2026 (the notice text retrieved truncates the precise grant day; it falls between the '678 grant on 2026-04-21 and the '192 grant on 2026-04-22).
• Reasoning: Per Apple's notice, the USPTO found the cited references "raise substantial new questions of patentability." Apple filed requests covering all five asserted patents; grants were also obtained on the '864 (claims 1, 8 — 2026-04-14), the '579 (claims 15, 16, 18, 27, 33 — 2026-04-14), the '678 (claim 1 — 2026-04-21), and the '192 (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 60, 61 — 2026-04-22).
• Defensive value: Potentially the single most important item for an '811 defendant right now — a pending reexam on the very claims (1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, 24) most likely asserted. If claims are canceled/confirmed-with-amendment, that reshapes the case. It is not PTAB precedent and does not create § 315(e)(2) estoppel.
• Source: Defendant Apple Inc.'s Notice of Ex Parte Reexaminations, Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship v. Apple Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. filed 2026-05-08) — CourtListener Docket #171.

Unified Patents PATROLL contest on the '811 (prior-art bounty, NOT an AIA trial)

• Type: Crowdsourced prior-art search contest (defensive-aggregator activity), not a Board proceeding.
• Dates: Opened 2022-03-04; closed 2022-07-15. $2,000 prize; "seeking prior art on at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,353,811." Note: "PRIOR ART THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED DURING PROSECUTION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED."
• Defensive value: A public, charted prior-art record against claim 1 exists (Apex Standards invalidity/construction charts; Limestone validity report; Traindex/IPscreener leads). Useful raw material for an IPR or reexam — but a bounty is not an instituted trial and creates no estoppel.
• Source: PATROLL contest page.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '811 patent: every claim is UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is canceled, nothing has been sustained by the Board. For claim-mapping purposes, the '811 claims presumably still stand as issued — including claims 1, 2, 9, 15, and 22, which are the wide independent/medium claims in the patent's 30-claim set, and claim 1 specifically, which the district court has construed (plain meaning for "monitor utilization of a plurality of resources over time as the application is running"; "application" not limited to "Flash or frame-based" as the defendants urged). See Wapp Tech Ltd. P'ship v. Apple Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00230, Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (E.D. Tex.) — Justia. The only live validity threat on the '811 is the pending ex parte reexam of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, 24; monitor its certificates closely.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty for the '811. Because no IPR/PGR was ever filed against this patent, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel barring anyone, and no petitioner/privy runway to inherit. Practically, that means a defendant retains the full universe of prior-art grounds at both the PTAB and in district court, subject only to ordinary IPR timing bars (§ 315(b) one-year service bar if you've been sued), § 325(d) discretion, and General Plastic follow-on concerns if the same party later files multiples. The risk to watch is the reverse: if you file an IPR and lose, you tie your hands for the grounds you raised or reasonably could have raised. Note the family-level activity (Capital One's IPR2025-01325 on the '192) does not estop anyone as to the '811.

Pattern signals. (1) The patent owner is a serial, coordinated asserter: the '811 has been pleaded in Wapp Tech v. Bank of America (4:21-cv-00670), Wapp Tech v. Wells Fargo (4:21-cv-00671), Wapp Tech v. JPMorgan Chase (4:23-cv-01137), and Wapp Tech v. Apple/Capital One/Frost (4:25-cv-00230, later transferred to S.D. Cal). The first three terminated in confidential settlements and dismissals with prejudice — a pattern of extracting settlements rather than litigating validity to judgment. (2) A defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) entered the picture with a 2022 PATROLL contest, but filed no IPR. (3) Apple went the reexam route in April 2026 rather than IPR — possibly a deliberate choice to avoid the § 311/§ 315 estoppel and Fintiv-type discretionary-denial risk that has narrowed IPR access. (4) I found no Federal Circuit appeal touching the '811 (there is no FWD to appeal, and no IPR-derived CAFC docket).

Bottom line for a defendant: the troll's '811 case is not PTAB-hardened (no adverse FWD exists) but is also not PTAB-prejudiced — you cannot say "the PTAB killed claim 1." Your best current levers are (i) ride or parallel the pending Apple ex parte reexam on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, 24 (stay/coordination arguments), and (ii) build a fresh IPR on the PATROLL-harvested art if you're within your § 315(b) window.

---

Recommended next steps

• You cannot cite an FWD — there isn't one on the '811. Do not tell a client or court that any '811 claim was canceled. The only "disposition"-type document is the reexam grant, referencing claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22, 24 — CourtListener Docket #171. Quote the reexam, not a phantom IPR.
• Monitor the ex parte reexam certificates. A canceled/amended '811 claim would be the single biggest defensive development available. Pull the reexam file from USPTO PatentCenter by the '811's application number (15/979,330) and watch for a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate.
• Watch Capital One's IPR2025-01325 (on the '192). Its institution decision, any FWD, and any appeal will preview arguments and constructions the family's claims can/cannot survive — even though it doesn't bind the '811.
• Preserve your IPR window. Because there is no estoppel, a defendant served with an '811 complaint has the full one-year § 315(b) window to file a clean IPR on the best art. The Unified Patents PATROLL art (Apex Standards charts, Limestone report) is a ready starting set; note that prosecution-cited art is excluded from the bounty.
• No AIA-trial milestones to track. There is no institution-deadline, no oral-hearing date, and no statutory 1-year FWD clock running on this patent, because no trial was instituted.

Confidence / caveats: High confidence that the ODP lists no AIA trials for the '811 and that web search found none. Lower confidence on the exact grant day of the '811 reexam (source text was truncated) and on the current status of IPR2025-01325 (I did not retrieve its institution decision). If real-time confirmation is needed, query PTAB E2E / the ODP for the '811 patent number directly before relying on this.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain and litigation history.

Let me dig into the assignment records and the corporate entities behind this patent.

Ownership and Assignment Analysis — US 10,353,811 B2

Critical sourcing caveat up front: My searches returned the Google Patents legal‑events record and the litigation/assignment‑adjacent databases (Unified Patents, RPX, Stanford NPE DB, CourtListener, Justia, Docketbird), but I was not able to retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center entry (reel/frame) for this patent. The Google Patents legal‑events feed for US10353811 shows exactly one assignment event and does not expose a reel/frame number. Everything below that is not reel‑grounded is flagged as such. I have not invented reel/frame numbers.

---

Inventors

• Donavan Paul Poulin — sole named inventor. Address of record: Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. Listed as inventor on the face of the '811 patent and on every asserted family member ('192, '864, '678, '579, and the '811 itself). Employer at time of filing: Wapp Tech Corp., Red Deer, Alberta, Canada — the entity named as both applicant and assignee on the issued patent (per the '811 and '579 patent fronts, e.g. "Applicant: Wapp Tech Corp., Red Deer (CA)"; "Assignee: WAPP TECH CORP., Alberta (CA)").
• Unusual pattern: this is a single‑inventor portfolio, not a team invention. There is no evidence of inventors departing an operating assignee within 12 months — the inventor is the assignor. The 2018‑06‑08 assignment shows Poulin assigning his own interest to Wapp Tech Corp. (see below), i.e., founder‑to‑own‑company, which is the opposite of the "inventors flee before a fire‑sale" tell.

Original assignee

• Wapp Tech Corp. (Alberta, Canada; principal address Red Deer, Alberta). Named on the '811 patent as applicant and assignee; current assignee per Google Patents.
• Line of business: mobile‑application development/testing simulation software — the specification describes emulating mobile handsets (Flash Lite/Flash Player era) and network conditions so developers can profile resource usage without owning every handset. The patent family has a heritage traceable to "Mobile Systems Verification Corporation" (cited as NPL in the sibling '875 patent: "A Million Users in a Box: The WTS Story," Mobile Systems Verification Corporation).
• Product embodying the claims: No current commercial product could be verified. The accused third‑party products in litigation (Micro Focus LoadRunner / Performance Center / StormRunner / Mobile Center; Apple Xcode; Google Android Studio) are the allegedly infringing products, not Wapp's own. Unified Patents expressly describes the owner as "Wapp Tech Corp, a NPE." (Unified Patents Patroll contest page). RPX Insight tags the litigation [NPE DC] (RPX Insight, Wapp Tech v. Wells Fargo). Note the contradiction: the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies the asserter category as "8 Product company" (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10353811), while Unified and RPX call it an NPE.
• Current status: operating as a patent‑holding/assertion entity in Canada (not shown as dissolved, acquired, or in bankruptcy). Recent filings are dominated by design patents — dozens of USD10,5xx,xxx design grants filed 2024–2025, all titled "Display screen with graphical user interface" (esp. USD1058590/91/92/93/96/98, USD1059414, USD1063973), suggesting recent UI build‑out well after the asserted utility family.

Assignment timeline

The one assignment event surfaced by Google Patents legal events (no reel/frame exposed in the feed):

• 2018-06-08 (recorded) — Reel/Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (per Google Patents event text: "REASSIGNMENT … ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: POULIN, DONAVAN PAUL
  • Assignee: WAPP TECH CORP.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (Assignment Center page unavailable in this session). Note the prosecution attorney of record on the '811 and '579 is Sheridan Ross P.C.; the sibling '875 lists Innovation Capital Law Group, LLP; the 2024 design patents list Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. These are prosecution correspondents, not assignment‑recording correspondents — do not conflate.
  • Context: founder/inventor‑to‑own‑company assignment during prosecution (application 15/979,330 filed 2018‑05‑14; patent issued 2019‑07‑16), i.e., an internal capitalization step, not an arms‑length acquisition.
• Source: Google Patents legal events, US10353811.

No post‑issuance assignment, security interest, merger, release, or change‑of‑name recording surfaced for the '811. On the record available, Wapp Tech Corp. remains both original and current assignee.

Unresolved ownership discrepancy to verify at the Assignment Center: nearly all suits are captioned "Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp." as co‑plaintiffs (e.g., 4:18‑cv‑00469, 4:18‑cv‑00501, 4:18‑cv‑00519, 4:21‑cv‑00670/671, 4:23‑cv‑01137, 4:25‑cv‑00230). Yet the only assignee on the patent face is Wapp Tech Corp. I found no recorded assignment from Wapp Tech Corp. to Wapp Tech Limited Partnership. This strongly implies the Limited Partnership holds an exclusive‑licensee or affiliated‑entity interest rather than record title — but that is an inference, not a recorded fact. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search by patent number 10,353,811 and by assignor "Poulin").

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership and assertion of US 10353811
    2005 : Provisional filed by Poulin
    2006 : Non-provisional filed
    2018 : Continuation application filed May 14
         : Assigned to Wapp Tech Corp Jun 8
         : First Wapp suits filed July
    2019 : Patent issues Jul 16
    2021 : 172M verdict vs Micro Focus
         : Bank suits filed
    2022 : Unified Patents prior art contest
    2023 : JPMorgan Chase suit filed
    2024 : JPMC dismissed with prejudice
    2025 : Suit vs Apple Capital One Frost
    2026 : Reexaminations granted on all five

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent never left an operating assignee for a licensing‑only LLC. The only transfer is inventor Poulin → Wapp Tech Corp. (2018‑06‑08), his own company; assignee remains Wapp Tech Corp. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" assignee, no registered‑agent‑service address appears in any record I could retrieve. (Reel/frame not retrieved — verify.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Wapp Tech is not on the classic lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi‑LAN, etc.), but it is affirmatively classified as an NPE/high‑frequency plaintiff by two independent NPE trackers: Unified Patents states "The patent is owned by Wapp Tech Corp, a NPE" and ran a $2,000 prior‑art bounty on claim 1 of the '811 starting March 3, 2022, and RPX Insight labels the campaign "NPE DC." Assertion targets span Micro Focus/Seattle Spinco, Hewlett‑Packard, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Apple, Capital One, Frost Bank, and a S.D. Cal. action (3:24‑cv‑02256).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not established. I could not retrieve the Assignment Center correspondent field for the single recorded event, so I cannot confirm or rebut a recurring recording attorney. Do not treat the recurring litigation counsel (Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP across the Micro Focus and bank cases) as the assignment correspondent — that is a different role and a single‑firm litigation engagement is not the recurrence signal described.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is no chain of consecutive LLC‑to‑LLC assignments; only one assignment exists in the record I could see.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (for this patent). The 2018‑06‑08 assignment predates the first Wapp suits (July 2018) by only weeks, but those suits asserted the '192/'864/'678 patents; the '811 did not issue until 2019‑07‑16 and was not first asserted until the 2021 bank cases (4:21‑cv‑00670/671). That is ~3 years from the assignment — outside the 6‑month window. No arms‑length transfer‑to‑asserter appears.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Wapp Tech Corp. surfaced.

7. Privateering — not present. Wapp Tech is itself the original assignee and the direct plaintiff; there is no operating‑company‑funds‑an‑NPE‑to‑sue‑competitors structure. (If anything, the accused products — LoadRunner, Xcode, Android Studio — belong to other operating companies, which is the reverse of privateering.)

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. Unified Patents is adverse to the patent (it is running the invalidity bounty), which confirms the patent is still asserted, not neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The ownership chain itself is boring — a single founder→own‑company assignment on 2018‑06‑08 with Wapp Tech Corp. still the record assignee — so the classic shell/cascade/pre‑litigation‑transfer tells are all absent. The NPE call rests on a different, well‑documented axis: Wapp Tech is expressly identified as "a NPE" by Unified Patents (which placed a prior‑art bounty on the '811 on 2022‑03‑03) and tagged "NPE DC" by RPX Insight, and it has run a serial multi‑defendant assertion campaign since July 2018 (Micro Focus/Seattle Spinco 4:18‑cv‑00469 → $172,554,269 jury verdict, 2021‑03‑05; HP 4:18‑cv‑00468; Wells Fargo 4:18‑cv‑00501 and 4:21‑cv‑00671; Bank of America 4:18‑cv‑00519 and 4:21‑cv‑00670; JPMorgan 4:23‑cv‑01137, dismissed with prejudice 2024; Apple/Capital One/Frost 4:25‑cv‑00230), with no verified product embodying the claims. Because that is essentially one strong signal (NPE classification + campaign) rather than the two‑plus independent chain‑level signals required for "high confidence," and because I could not verify the reel/frame correspondent data, I stop at moderate.

Verify the primary record at: USPTO Assignment Center — search patent no. 10,353,811; also check assignor "Poulin, Donavan Paul" and assignee "Wapp Tech Corp." / "Wapp Tech Limited Partnership" to resolve whether the LP holds any recorded interest.

I'll research US patent 10353811 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific prior-art citations of US10353811.

Let me look for the full "References Cited" list and the patent's family/prosecution citations.

Research Report — US Patent No. 10,353,811

Important methodology note up front: My searches returned the Google Patents record, litigation filings (Texas E.D. Tex.), and the Unified Patents / Patroll prior-art contest page for this patent — not a direct USPTO PatentCenter/API export. I was also unable, within my search budget, to retrieve the complete machine-readable "References Cited" list for the '811 patent. Below I distinguish clearly between (a) items I could confirm from retrieved sources and (b) items I could not independently verify. I have not fabricated dates, titles, or inventors; where I am uncertain I say so.

---

1. The patent as identified (US 10,353,811)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10353811/en ; litigation front‑page data embedded there.

Claim 1 (representative independent claim) requires the computer to: (a) display a selectable list of mobile device models; (b) simulate device characteristics of the selected model; (c) simulate network characteristics; (d) monitor utilization of a plurality of resources over time; (e) display simultaneously two or more graphical images, each relating to a different resource; and (f) correspond the utilization of a specific displayed resource at a given time with the function(s) of the application responsible. Independent claims 9, 15 and 22 recite close variants (9 = "synched in time" multi-resource displays; 15 = download characteristics from a remote server + identify areas of code; 22 = simulate device characteristics + transmit to a physical device).

---

2. Prior-art references cited on the face of the '811 patent

From the front-page "References Cited" reproduced in the litigation exhibit (https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.[236491](/patent/236491)/gov.uscourts.txed.236491.1.5.pdf), the U.S. patent documents listed are:

Foreign patent document cited:

Non-patent literature cited (from the '811 front page):

Note: the parent US 9,971,678 B2 / US 8,332,203 cite a larger NPL set that is part of the same family's art, including: Sun Microsystems, "White Paper on KVM and the Connected, Limited Device Configuration (CLDC)," J2ME Building Blocks for Mobile Devices (May 19, 2000); Symbian, "EPOC Emulator" (1997); Talbot, "Creating Flash Lite Applications," Adobe (2006); Taylor, "J2ME IDE Comparison" (Jun. 29, 2002); Texas Instruments, "Code Composer Studio v3.0/Getting Started Guide" (Sep. 2004); Yuan, "Developing J2ME Applications with EclipseME," IBM (Nov. 30, 2004); and a Thinkvillage‑Kiwi LLC litigation complaint (Case No. CV 08‑4166 JL, Sep. 1, 2008). https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9971678B2](/patent/US9971678B2)/en

---

3. Assessment against 35 U.S.C. § 102

None of the references cited on the face of the '811 patent appears to disclose every element of any independent claim (1, 9, 15, or 22). In particular, none of the cited U.S. references that I could review is shown to teach the combination of (i) selectable mobile‑device models, (ii) simulated device and network characteristics, (iii) over‑time multi‑resource monitoring, (iv) simultaneous multi‑resource graphical display, and (v) mapping a displayed resource spike to the application function/code responsible. On the record available these references are better characterized as:

• § 102 background/anticipation candidates only for narrow dependent-claim concepts (e.g., generic emulation or network simulation), and
• § 103 obviousness material if combined, rather than standalone § 102 anticipatory art.

I therefore cannot responsibly assert § 102 anticipation of any independent claim by these cited references.

---

4. Additional, potentially more relevant prior-art leads (NOT the patent's own citations)

These surfaced in the Patroll/Unified Patents contest page for US 10,353,811 and in my searches. They are third‑party-submitted candidates, not the patent's face citations, but are worth flagging because they appear closer to claim 1:

Contest/aggregator leads: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/JaEzGFBeFBneRwkgT ; https://www.apexstandards.com/pcc/US10353811B2_invalidity/

---

5. Confidence and limitations (stated explicitly)

• High confidence: all bibliographic data about US 10,353,811 itself (number, application 15/979,330, filing/grant dates, inventor, assignee, priority chain, 30 claims, claim text of claims 1–28, litigation status) — taken directly from the patent text and Google Patents record supplied.
• Medium confidence: that the front page lists exactly US 5,892,794, US 5,937,421, US 6,467,652 and WO 99/63439 as cited references (matches the litigation exhibit OCR).
• Low confidence / unverified: the titles, inventors, filing dates, and subject matter of US 5,937,421, US 6,467,652 and WO 99/63439, and the "Slegers" attribution for US 5,892,794 (a number/title mismatch I could not resolve). I did not fabricate descriptions for these.
• I could not retrieve a complete, authoritative USPTO "References Cited" enumeration or the examiner's reasons for allowance within the allotted searches. If exact anticipation mapping matters (e.g., for an IPR or invalidity contention), the front page of the granted patent and the USPTO file wrapper should be pulled directly.

If you'd like, I can next pull the complete cited-reference list and prosecution history for application 15/979,330 (and the parent 14/581,475) to firm up the § 102/§ 103 mapping.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references associated with US 10353811 rather than relying on memory. Let me pull the cited references and family history.

Let me retrieve the actual cited references list for this patent and check the referenced family members.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,353,811 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Patent: US 10,353,811 B2, "System for developing and testing a mobile application," Wapp Tech Corp., inventor Donavan Paul Poulin

---

1. What the "Prior Art" section of this page actually gives us — and what it does not

Per your instruction, I started from the prior-art data on the supplied Google Patents record. Literally, that panel contains:

Important limitation: the page as provided does not enumerate a "References Cited" list. Google's "Prior Art" panel supplies keywords, an assumed priority date, and CPC codes only. So a § 103 analysis cannot be built from that panel alone. I therefore supplemented it with the reference lists that appear on the face of the patent and its family members (the "References Cited" field, reproduced in the granted-copy PDF), which is the authoritative source for what is "of record":

Records retrieved and relied on:

• Granted copy of the patent (References Cited): https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.[236491](/patent/236491)/gov.uscourts.txed.236491.1.5.pdf
• Family member US 11,327,875 B2, References Cited: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a6/2f/b3/95ca963f4b4ab5/US11327875.pdf
• Family member US 10,691,579 B2, References Cited: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/20/50/69/10e750829619d6/US10691579.pdf
• Family member US 8,332,203 B1, References Cited: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/8f/8d/c8f3f0e3da030f/US8332203.pdf
• Patroll prior-art contest page for the '811: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/JaEzGFBeFBneRwkgT

References Cited (as printed on the '811 / family copies), reported literally, including OCR variants I am not correcting:

U.S. patents: 5,892,794 (Slegers); 5,937,421 (Petrov et al.); 6,389,384 (Hampshire et al.); 6,393,437 (Zinda et al.); 6,467,052 / 6,467,652 / 6,467,053 (Kaler et al. — the copies disagree on the last digit); 6,477,458 / 6,477,483 (Scarlat et al. — copies disagree); 6,506,564 / 6,560,564 (Scarlat et al. — copies disagree); 6,708,293 / 6,705,293 (Kaler et al. — copies disagree); 6,802,058 (Banavar et al.); 7,107,049 (rendered variously as "Barberis," "Balot," "Balder"); 7,107,176 / 7,047,176 (Klevans et al.); 7,313,772 (Hekmatpour et al.); 7,339,891 (Binder et al.); 7,508,868 / 7,508,858 (Chang — copies disagree); 7,529,909 (rendered as "Haggerty" and "Bagherty"); 7,546,298 (rendered as "Poulin" in one copy and "Hulaj et al." in another); 7,613,453 (Hassan et al.); 7,647,399 (rendered "Ofel"); 7,673,042 (Lesser); 7,757,207 (Yan et al.); 7,783,463 (Herro); 7,813,910 (Poulin); 7,877,230 (rendered "Ofel et al."); 7,877,247 (Nahata et al.); 8,086,904 (Goldstein et al.); 8,108,201 (rendered "Ragnunath" / "Ragunath"); 8,116,179 (rendered "Lewallen" / "Leuven").

U.S. publications: 2002/0188711 (Bloch et al.); 2004/0003975 (Kounik et al.); 2006/0036941 (Neil); 2007/0005324 (Gong et al.); 2007/0019769 (Green et al.); 2007/0017426 (Watters et al.); 2007/0142091 (Gasbarro et al.); 2007/0174490 (Choi et al.); 2007/0288424 (Neil); 2008/0313282 (Warila et al.); 2010/0017185 (Bade et al.).

Foreign: GB 2398456 (8/2004); GB 2398457 (8/2004); WO 99/63439 (12/1999).

Non-patent literature: "A Simple MIDP Application," http://dsc.sun.com/mobility/midp/chapters/j2mewhite/chap04.pdf, Developing MIDP Applications, Chapter 4, Mar. 2002; MacroMedia Flash MX 2004 Professional Flash Lite User Manual, 2d ed., Aug. 2003; Macromedia Flash MX Professional 2004, Flash Lite Authoring Guidelines for the i-mode Service by NTT DoCoMo, 1st ed., Mar. 2003; Macromedia Flash 8, Developing Flash Lite Applications, 1st ed., Sep. 2005; "A Million Users in a Box: The WTS Story," Mobile Systems Verification Corporation.

I have verified the subject matter of only some of these (Section 3). For the remainder I state explicitly that I did not verify their disclosures and do not assert what they teach.

---

2. Threshold: effective filing date and which § 102/§ 103 regime applies

This is not a formality; it controls which references are available and whether Javaground's art can be used at all.

• The '811 issued from App. 15/979,330, filed May 14, 2018, as a continuation of 14/581,475 (Dec. 23, 2014) → 13/673,692 (now US 8,924,192) → 12/759,543 (now US 8,332,203) → 11/449,958 (now US 7,813,910) → provisional 60/689,101, filed June 10, 2005. All incorporated by reference.

• If every issued claim is supported by the 2005 disclosure, the effective filing date is 2005-06-10 and pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 governs. The '811's own Background, however, contains two statements that matter here:

  • "Currently[, in the prior art], the only way to determine if an application plays on a particular mobile device is to transfer the application to the device and play it."
  • Development packages "may simulate operation of the application playing on the targeted mobile device, [but] they do not determine if the application will play correctly on the targeted mobile device based upon resource usage."

  These are admissions that (i) device emulation and (ii) authoring-tool simulation of a selected mobile device were known; the asserted point of novelty is the resource-utilization monitoring and the network simulation layered on top.

• Priority-dependency risk: during prosecution of the '330 application, the Office issued a 5 October 2018 non-final action rejecting claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and for nonstatutory double patenting over US 7,813,910. Applicant amended on 7 January 2019 (claims 12 and 18 canceled; new claims 31–32 added) and filed a terminal disclaimer over US 7,813,910. Allowance issued 5 April 2019 with no stated reasons for allowance, and the 5 October 2018 action included only a Notice of References Cited listing 9 documents, with no prior art discussed. (Source: USPTO Decision on Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, Control No. 90/016,030, reproduced at https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.236491/gov.uscourts.txed.236491.171.4.pdf.)

  • Practical consequence: the '811's claims were never substantively examined against prior art. They were allowed after a § 112(a) rejection and a double-patenting rejection were cured by amendment and disclaimer. A § 103 attack is therefore not fighting a considered allowance.
  • Second consequence: if any issued claim is not entitled to the 2005 date (the § 112(a) rejection at least shows the examiner's initial doubt about written-description support for the recast claim language), the effective filing date moves into the AIA era and 2013–2018 art becomes available. The combinations below survive under either regime, so this risk is noted but not dispositive.

---

3. The claims to be analyzed (decomposed)

The record reproduces 30 claims; claims 29 and 30 are truncated in the material provided, so I do not analyze them.

Claim 1 (independent; the "developing" claim):
(a) non-transitory CRM with instructions for developing an application to be run on a mobile device; (b) display a list of a plurality of mobile device models selectable by a user, each model including characteristics of a corresponding mobile device; (c) simulate at least one characteristic of the selected device; (d) simulate characteristics of a network the device can operate on; (e) monitor utilization of a plurality of resources over time; (f) display simultaneously two or more graphical images of resource utilization, each relating to a different resource; (g) correspond the utilization of a specific displayed resource at a given time with one or more functions of the application responsible for that utilization.

Claim 9 (independent): device list/targeting; model device characteristics; monitor plurality of resources over time; simultaneously display two or more resource graphs synched in time as the application runs; identify one or more functions responsible.

Claim 15 (independent): device-type list; simulate device-type characteristics; initiate downloading of at least one characteristic from a remote server; monitor resources; display graphical image(s); identify one or more areas of code responsible.

Claim 22 (independent): simulate device characteristics from the recited list (processor type/speed, storage access speed, RAM size, storage size, display width/height, pixel depth, processor/RAM/storage availability); monitor processor and RAM usage; display graphical images; correspond utilization to functions; initiate transmission of the application to one or more physical versions of the mobile device.

Dependent families: 2, 10, 17, 23 (transmission to physical devices; downloading from a remote server); 4, 11, 16 (the enumerated characteristic list); 5 (processor, RAM and network usage); 6, 13, 20, 25 (network characteristics derived at least in part from information captured from one or more wireless networks; storage in file/database/internet-accessible media); 7, 21, 27 (network characteristics based on a geographical region, displayed via map/drop-down list/menu, and custom network characteristics); 8, 14, 26 (simulate network events; user scripts emulating real user behavior); 12, 19, 24 (bandwidth); 18, 28 (simultaneous multi-resource display).

Note on preamble scope: in the co-pending TXED litigation over family members ('192, '864, '678), the court held the preambles limiting and construed "system for testing an application for a mobile device" and "system for developing an application for a mobile device" according to their plain meaning. So "developing" is a real limitation, but it is a low bar — the claims cover a development-time tool that emulates and measures.

---

4. Verified prior art and what each reference discloses

4.1 Binder — US 7,339,891 B2, "Method and system for evaluating wireless applications" (mVerify Corp.)

• Filed Jan. 9, 2003; priority to provisional 60/346,931 (Jan. 9, 2002); published Aug. 21, 2003 as a U.S. publication; PCT counterpart WO 2004/064431 A3. It is cited on the face of the '811's own record, and it is pre-2005 art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e).
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7339891B2](/patent/US7339891B2)/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7339891.html
• Disclosures relevant to the claims (quotations from the patent record and from the '811-family claim chart at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13105687):
  • A wireless testing system that can "simulate, emulate, and control a wide range of mobile user devices and associated network equipment over multisource, multiprotocol, cellular voice and wireless data networks to evaluate mobile application reliability and performance" (¶[0011]).
  • Virtual MUDs = "software-only emulation of a MUD 21, which supports a MUD Client Under Test 16, which are both controlled through a Test Agent 14" (¶[0027]).
  • Explicit testing of "MUD 21 Resource Utilization."
  • Network simulation: Base Station Emulator 1; "simulate fading, dynamic load-based cell reconfiguration ('breathing'), movement over any number of cells"; representation of end-user "movement and network interaction through a large geographical area" via "coverage maps … that map signal strength, delay time, allowable users, and other location-specific variables onto a specific physical space" (¶¶[0013]–[0014]).
  • User-behavior/event scripting: "Virtual users and end-user behavior models are part of the overall application model developed by a test engineer and stored in the WTS Repository Manager 9"; "The load and event profile of the simulation controls variation in the number of active virtual users and the rate at which each active virtual user interacts with the system under test" (Application Profile 27).
  • GUI and result display: Test Console 7 is "the graphic user interface to WTS all system functions," used to "select/execute a test suite to run," "generate a new setup," and "monitor and control" runs; the Application Model Builder 8 and Repository Manager 9 are used to "perform analysis of models and test runs."
  • Remote operation: WTS "may be controlled through a directly connected computer that hosts WTS or … over a network such as a local area network or wide area network like the Internet."

Binder therefore supplies, in substance: device emulation driven by device characteristics; network characteristics simulation; geographically located, wireless-network-derived network parameters; scripted network events emulating real user behavior; and monitoring of device resource utilization during a run.

4.2 Javaground — US 2006/0277231 A1, "Integrated software development and porting system for wireless devices" (Javaground USA, Inc.)

• Filed June 6, 2005; published Dec. 7, 2006. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060277231A1/en
• Prior-art status — this is the analytically important point. Javaground's U.S. filing date is June 6, 2005, which precedes even the '811's assumed prior-art date of June 10, 2005 (and the provisional 60/689,101). Under pre-AIA § 102(e) a U.S. application publication is prior art as of its U.S. filing date; under AIA § 102(a)(2)/(d) it is prior art as of its "effectively filed" date. Either way, Javaground is available as prior art against the '811 — by four days. I flag that margin explicitly: if the '811's priority claim were ever adjudicated to shift even a few days, the reference would still predate the provisional; the exposure runs the other way, in the sense that Javaground is already on the safe side of the critical date.
• Javaground does not appear in the References Cited of the '811 or of US 11,327,875 / 10,691,579 / 8,332,203. It is therefore new art, which matters because the Patroll contest rules state that "prior art that has been previously cited during prosecution will not be considered."
• Disclosures relevant to the claims (per the record retrieved):
  • "a database including attributes of at least the plurality of wireless devices" — attributes includes "screen size, processor speed, memory, and keyboards" (¶[0004]).
  • A "target selector 113 for selecting any device representations of wireless devices contained in the database 110."
  • A "universal and concurrent device emulator 101" that generates emulated devices "based on attributes of selected wireless devices, library information, and resources."
  • "After certain wireless devices are selected (e.g., select 200 wireless devices from a database of 1,000 wireless devices), the universal and concurrent emulator can automatically emulate the selected devices and automatically and concurrently test the source code on the emulated devices."
  • A "provisioning server" that "can receive an application and that can deliver an application to a device," with "test results and comments … fed back to the provisioning server" after testing on actual devices.
  • Updating: "each of the following is for being updated by retrieving an update from a repository or a server: the database, the one or more libraries, the emulator, the porting engine, and the resource manager."

Javaground therefore supplies, in substance: a list of mobile device models with characteristics from which a user selects; simulation of the selected device's characteristics; downloading characteristics/model updates from a remote server; concurrent testing of an application on the emulated devices; and transmission of the application to physical devices.

4.3 Tira Wireless — US 2005/0108692 A1, "System and method of generating applications for mobile devices"

• Filed Oct. 29, 2004 (CIP of 10/782,917, Feb. 23, 2004, itself a CIP of 10/713,024, Nov. 17, 2003); published May 19, 2005 — i.e., published before the 2005-06-10 date. URL: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6b/ae/1d/0b42f773be3370/US20050108692A1.pdf
• Discloses device plug-ins keyed to reference/target device combinations, transformation of an application from a reference device to a target device, and a flow in which an "Intermediate Application Build" is tested before the target build is produced (its FIG. 4 flow: "Test Intermediate Application Build 66"). Useful corroboration that emulator-based test-then-package development of mobile applications was routine before June 2005.

4.4 Non-patent literature of record

• Macromedia Flash MX 2004 Professional, Flash Lite User Manual (Aug. 2003); Flash Lite Authoring Guidelines for the i-mode Service by NTT DoCoMo (Mar. 2003). These describe the Flash Lite device-profile mechanism in an authoring environment: a selectable list of handset models, each with declared performance/display parameters, and emulation of the selected handset inside the authoring tool before publishing to the handset. That this is what the '811's own Table 1 encodes is plain: Table 1's row values are "Name: NOKIA 3650; Processor: ARM 4T; Processor Speed: 104 MHz; Storage Access Speed: 5.88 files/second; RAM Size: 256 MB; Storage Size: 512 MB; Display Width: 256; Display Height: 394; Pixel Depth: 24; Processor Availability: 60%; RAM Availability: 60%; Storage Availability: 40%" — a device-profile table, not a measured handset.
• Sun, "A Simple MIDP Application," Developing MIDP Applications, Ch. 4 (Mar. 2002). J2ME/MIDP tooling with device emulation and per-device runtime profiles.
• "A Million Users in a Box: The WTS Story," Mobile Systems Verification Corporation. The Binder/WTS product literature.

4.5 Record references I could not verify

I did not retrieve the disclosures of US 7,107,049; 7,313,772; 7,546,298; 7,647,399; 7,673,042; 7,783,463; 7,877,230; 7,877,247; 8,086,904; 8,108,201; 8,116,179; or the Neil, Gong, Green, Watters, Gasbarro, Choi, Warila, Bade, Kounik and Bloch publications, and I do not assert what any of them teaches. Several of them (e.g., 7,313,772 and 7,877,247) are typed to simulation/performance-analysis classes and are plausible candidates for the profiling limitations, but that is a lead, not a finding. The OCR of the granted copy renders several inventor names two different ways (Section 1); I have not silently corrected them.

---

5. § 103 combinations

Combination A (primary): Binder + Javaground

Maps claim 15 almost completely, and claim 1/9/22 except for the visualization/attribution limitations:

Why a POSA would combine them. Both are in the same field (wireless/mobile application development and test), and both are aimed at the identical, expressly articulated problem: handset fragmentation and the impossibility of acquiring and repeatedly testing every target device. Javaground's background states the problem in nearly the same words as the '811's Background ("the wireless devices have different features (for example, size of the screen, processor speed, memory, and keyboards) … an application created for device A will most likely not run on device B … the porting process is tedious and time consuming"). The '811's Background says testing requires transferring the app to each device "hundreds of times (development life cycles)." A POSA asked to shorten that cycle would (i) take the device-attribute database + emulator + selector + provisioning-server architecture of Javaground (a development-side tool), and (ii) plug in Binder's environmental and measurement capability (network emulation, wireless-network-derived geographic parameters, scripted events, and resource-utilization probing), because Binder supplies exactly the missing input — a realistic operating environment — and Javaground supplies exactly the missing delivery vehicle — device profiles and developer-side tooling. This is the KSR "familiar elements according to known methods … to yield predictable results," and the combination is a combination of references that address the same problem, from the same technical community, in the same period. There is no teaching away: Binder's virtual MUDs are used because they faithfully reproduce a real device, and Javaground's emulator is used because it is faithful to device attributes.

Result: Combination A renders claim 15 obvious (including the remote-download limitation, which Javaground states almost verbatim), and renders claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29(?)–dependents obvious to the extent they track the above. It renders claims 1, 9, 22 obvious except for the "simultaneously display two or more graphical images each relating to a different resource" and "correspond utilization … with the functions/areas of code responsible" limitations.

Combination B: Binder + Javaground + a software-performance-profiling reference

The two remaining functional limitations in claims 1, 9, 12, 18, 22, 28 are:

• display simultaneously two or more graphical images of utilization, each relating to a different resource, synched in time; and
• correspond (claim 1/22) or identify (claims 9/15) the utilization of a specific resource at a given time with the function(s) / area(s) of code responsible.

These are the classic features of desktop software performance profilers that predate 2005 — CPU/elapsed-time usage charts, memory allocation charts, and call-graph/function-level attribution presented side by side on a common time axis — and the record contains several references typed to performance analysis/monitoring classes (e.g., US 7,313,772 to Hekmatpour et al., typed to simulation; US 7,877,247 to Nahata et al.; US 8,108,201 to Ragunath et al.) that are candidates. I have not verified those disclosures, so I will not assert them. What I can say with confidence:

• Each of the two limitations is a known, discrete technique applied to a known problem: once you decide to measure resource usage of an application in order to fix it (Binder's own "MUD Resource Utilization"), presenting the measurements as time-aligned per-resource graphs and pointing at the responsible code is the purpose of the measurement. A POSA would not view that as an inventive leap; it is the ordinary output format of a profiler, and its combination with the emulation environment of Combination A is a mere juxtaposition of known techniques that does not produce an unexpected result.
• Support in the record for this being ordinary practice: the '811's Background concedes that Flash development packages already "simulate operation of the application playing on the targeted mobile device." A tool that displays the simulated device's screen while testing — the '811's own FIG. 4/FIG. 5 window, combining a device image (400) with a utilization graph (300) — follows directly from that concession plus the requirement to measure (which is the admitted point of novelty).

Honest assessment of the gap: Combination B is the weakest link in the chain, and it is the specific limitation the reexamination requester would need well-documented art to support. "Well within the ordinary skill of the art" is not a sufficient reason to modify, and the PTAB has repeatedly refused to allow the Board's own expertise to supply a missing disclosure on a core fact (see, e.g., the arguments at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1458359](/patent/1458359) and .../1458518, citing In re Kahn and HIMPP v. Hear-Wear, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014): "[t]he presence or absence of a claimed feature is a core fact in a § 103 determination"). So a real § 103 petition should not rest on this element alone; it needs an identified reference or product literature (a profiler manual, an SDK, a screencast) showing simultaneous multi-resource time-aligned display with code attribution. Pre-2005 candidate classes: vendor performance-analyzer manuals (e.g., desktop runtime performance analyzers, J2ME/JVM profiling tools) and the mobile SDK documentation family already of record.

Combination C: Binder + the Flash Lite NPL (for the admitted-prior-art elements)

If a tribunal accepts the '811's own Background as an admission, then the device-profile list + authoring-tool emulation elements of claims 1(b)–(c), 9, 15 and 22 are admitted prior art (Flash MX/Studio 8 with Flash Lite device profiles). Binder then supplies the network-simulation and resource-measurement elements. This combination is narrower but requires no claim-construction fight over the CRM preamble. Tira Wireless US 2005/0108692 A1 can be added as corroboration of development-time test-then-package workflow.

---

6. Dependent-claim treatment

• 4, 11, 16 (characteristic list: processor type/speed, storage access speed, RAM/storage size, display width/height, pixel depth, availability percentages): Javaground's attributes expressly include screen size, processor speed, and memory; Flash Lite device profiles (the source of Table 1) declare screen dimensions, pixel depth, processor class and availability-type parameters. The full list is a finite set of device attributes routinely collected for mobile emulation; selecting the complete set is an obvious design choice with no unexpected result. Strong.
• 5 (monitored resources = processor usage, RAM usage and network usage): Binder monitors MUD resource utilization in a network-simulation context; Javaground emulates processor and memory. Combination of the two is the natural output of the system. Strong.
• 6, 13, 20, 25 (network characteristics derived from information captured from real wireless networks; stored in file/database/internet-accessible media): Binder's coverage maps of signal strength, delay time and allowable users mapped onto physical space, held in the Repository Manager 9. Very strong on the "derived from wireless networks" element; the storage-medium recitation is a Beauregard-style design choice.
• 7, 21, 27 (geographic region; map / drop-down list / drop-down menu; custom characteristics): Binder simulates a geographic region with cells and coverage maps; Tira/Javaground and Flash Lite use drop-down device selection. Presenting geographic network selection as a map is the natural UI for data that is, by definition, geographic. Moderate-to-strong; the "create custom network characteristics" sub-element needs its own support.
• 8, 14, 26 (simulate network events; user-creatable scripts emulating real user behavior): Binder's Application Model Builder + Application Profile 27 + load/event profiles = scripted actor behavior driving the system under test. Strong.
• 12, 19, 24 (bandwidth as a simulated network characteristic): bandwidth is one of the elementary radio/data-path parameters Binder's simulator must instantiate to model data transfer, alongside the signal strength, delay time and allowable-users parameters it expressly maps. Moderate.
• 2, 10, 17, 22/23 (transmit the app to physical devices; physical devices connected to internet/wireless network/server for user interaction and testing): Javaground's provisioning server delivers executables to devices and receives test results back; Binder's Test Agents drive real MUDs, and WTS can be operated over the Internet. Strong.
• 18, 28 (simultaneous multi-resource display): same gap as Combination B.
• 29, 30: not reproduced in the material provided; I cannot analyze them and will not guess.

---

7. Current posture (materially relevant to any § 103 challenge)

• Ex parte reexamination is pending. Control No. 90/016,030, request filed March 6, 2026 (requester "3PR"), directed to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22 and 24. The Office's Decision on Request found a substantial new question of patentability on those claims and ordered reexamination; claims 3, 6–8, 10–21, 23 and 25–30 were not requested and are not being reexamined. (https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.236491/gov.uscourts.txed.236491.171.4.pdf) Note that claim 1, claim 9 and claim 22 — three of the four independent claims — are squarely in the reexam.
• Litigation. Asserted in TXED 4:21-cv-00670, 4:21-cv-00671, 4:23-cv-01137 and 4:25-cv-00230, and CASD 3:24-cv-02256 (per the Google Patents litigation panel). In the related family litigation, Binder (US 7,339,891) was charted against claims of the '864, '192 and '678 patents, together with another reference identified only as "Seckendorf" (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13105687) — i.e., Binder is already the backbone of an invalidity contention against this family. That is a meaningful signal for § 103 prospects on the '811, since the '811 shares the specification.
• Crowdsourced prior art. The Unified Patents Patroll contest for US 10,353,811 (claim 1) is closed; participants were barred from submitting art "previously cited during prosecution." (https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/JaEzGFBeFBneRwkgT) That restriction is precisely why un-cited art such as Javaground US 2006/0277231 A1 has disproportionate value here.
• Family footprint. Continuations have issued as US 11,327,875 and US 11,971,812, with further applications (US 2024/0256434 A1) and dozens of design patents (USD1058590–USD1058596, USD1058589, USD1058591–USD1058592, USD1059398, USD1063973, USD1085145, USD1089268–USD1089273, USD1091590–USD1091598, USD1092526, USD1094427–USD1094433, USD1095578–USD1095585, USD1096817). Any § 103 theory should be built against the whole family, since Wapp Tech appears to assert across the portfolio.

---

8. Bottom line

1. Claim 15 is the most exposed independent claim. Javaground US 2006/0277231 A1 alone discloses the device-model list with characteristics, user selection, attribute-driven emulation, remote download/update of those characteristics, and transmission of the application to physical devices; Binder supplies the simulated-network environment the claim requires. The combination is compelled by the shared, expressly stated problem of handset fragmentation. Javaground is prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) and AIA § 102(a)(2) on its June 6, 2005 U.S. filing date, four days before the '811's assumed 2005-06-10 date, and it is not cited anywhere in the '811's prosecution record.
2. Claim 22 and most dependent claims fall to Binder + Javaground on the same reasoning; the enumerated characteristic list is a routine selection from device attributes Javaground and the Flash Lite device profiles already collect, and the processor/RAM/network monitoring trio follows from Binder's "MUD Resource Utilization" testing in a network-simulation context.
3. Claims 1 and 9 turn on two limitations that Combination A does not reach on the verified record: simultaneous time-synced display of two or more per-resource graphs, and correspondence of a specific resource's utilization at a given time to the responsible function(s) or code area. Those are the ordinary output of pre-2005 performance profilers and are the purpose of Binder's measurement, but I have not verified a specific reference for them, and "ordinary skill" alone will not carry a § 103 case on a core fact. A third reference (or product literature) is required, and I recommend targeting pre-2005 JVM/J2ME or desktop performance-analyzer documentation, plus checking whether the record references US 7,313,772, 7,877,247 or 8,108,201 fill that role.
4. Two further caveats to test before filing anything. First, whether the issued claims are actually supported by provisional 60/689,101 — the October 5, 2018 § 112(a) rejection shows the examiner initially doubted it, and a loss of the 2005 date would open 2006–2018 art (including Javaground's publication under § 102(a)(1)/(b) and the whole Wapp continuation chain as potential art against each other) and move the case into the AIA. Second, the January 7, 2019 terminal disclaimer over US 7,813,910 is the applicant's own concession that the '811 claims are not patentably distinct from that parent — useful context for a motivation-to-modify argument, though not itself § 103 art.
5. The reexam (90/016,030) is the near-term battleground. The Office has already found a substantial new question of patentability on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 22 and 24. Any independent § 103 work product should be sequenced against that proceeding and should avoid the prosecution-cited art.

Everything above is analysis of public patent and litigation records, not legal advice or a legal conclusion of validity or infringement.