US 9298864

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

Let me get the exact claim set and check for any 2026 CAFC appeal activity.

Let me confirm the full independent claim language and claim count.

Based on the patent text you provided (authoritative) plus the searches I ran, here is a concise, grounded summary of US 9,298,864 B2.

---

Bibliographic Data

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system, method and software product emulate and profile an application playing on a mobile device. The mobile device is emulated using a model based upon characteristics related to performance of the mobile device. The application is played and monitored within the model to determine resource utilization of the application for the mobile device."

---

Overall Subject Matter (plain-language overview)

The patent family (Wapp Tech / Poulin) is directed to simulating and profiling mobile applications before they are run on physical handsets. A "device model" is built from stored characteristics (processor type/speed, RAM size, storage, display size/pixel depth, and availability percentages), the app is executed inside that model on an external processor, and a profiler measures per-frame resource utilization (CPU, memory, graphics, network). The '864 patent in particular adds the network-simulation angle: network characteristics are simulated (via an "operator development server"/simulator over the Internet), and the app's resource use is profiled within one or more "profile display windows" while subjected to those simulated network conditions.

---

Independent Claims (plain-language)

The specification lists 35 numbered claims; the independent claims are 1, 20, 29, 31, and 32 (with dependent claims 2–19, 21–28, 30, 33–35).

Claim 1 — System (the claim asserted in the Micro Focus trial):

"A system for testing an application for a mobile device comprising: software configured to simulate, via one or more profile display windows, a plurality of network characteristics indicative of performance of the mobile device when executing the application; wherein the network characteristics are based on data of interaction with networks in non-simulated environments."

Plain language: A software system that emulates multiple real‑world network conditions (derived from actual network data) and shows them through one or more profile display windows that indicate how the mobile device will perform when running the app. (The court construed "simulate, via one or more profile display windows" as "emulate, and display one or more windows showing resources of the mobile device that are available to the application.")

Claim 20 — Method (multi-device emulation):

"A method for emulating an application playing on an application player in each of a plurality of mobile devices, the method comprising: retrieving characteristics, indicative of performance, for each of the mobile devices; emulating each of the mobile devices in real time using respective models running on a processor extrinsic to the mobile devices, wherein each of the models is based on the retrieved characteristics; playing the application in real time using the application player within each of the models; monitoring the application playing in each of the models to determine resource utilization information by the application for each of the mobile devices; and displaying the resource utilization information for at least one of the mobile devices."

Plain language: Run one app against several simulated phones at once (on a machine separate from the phones), watch how much resource each simulation consumes, and display the results.

Claim 29 — Method (list-selection emulation):

"A method for emulating an application playing on at least one mobile device comprising: receiving instructions to select each said mobile device from a list including characteristics indicative of performance of each said mobile device; emulating each said mobile device using a respective model, wherein each said model is based upon the characteristics of a respective said mobile device; playing the application in real time within each said model; monitoring each said model to determine resource utilization of the application for each said mobile device; and displaying the resource utilization information."

Plain language: A user picks target phones from a list of stored device characteristics; each selection is emulated, the app runs in the model, resource use is measured, and the utilization is displayed.

Claim 31 — Method (crash-frame identification):

"A method for emulating a frame-based application playing on a mobile device that includes an application player, the method comprising: retrieving characteristics indicative of performance of the mobile device; emulating, on a processor extrinsic to the mobile device, the mobile device as a model based upon the retrieved characteristics; playing the application in real time within the model; monitoring the application playing in the model to determine utilization of the mobile device's resources by the application; identifying a frame of the application where resource utilization by the application exceeds a maximum resource availability threshold of the mobile device; and displaying the identified frame to indicate a crash of the application on the emulated mobile device."

Plain language: Emulate the phone, run the frame-based app, and when a particular frame uses more resources than the phone allows, flag/display that frame as the point of "crash."

Claim 32 — Method (iterative authoring, Internet download):

"A method for developing an application to play on a mobile device that includes an application player, the method comprising: downloading, via the Internet, computer-readable instructions for executing the application; determining resource utilization of the application when executed on the mobile device by: emulating the mobile device on a processor extrinsic to the mobile device using a model based on the characteristics; loading the application into the model; and monitoring the application playing in real time within the model to determine resource utilization of the application for the mobile device; and repeating the steps of receiving and determining until the resource utilization when running the application is no greater than resource availability of the mobile device."

Plain language: An Internet-download-based develop‑test loop: emulate the target phone, run the app, measure its resource use, then revise and repeat until the app fits within the device's available resources. (Claim 34 adds that the download is "responsive to an online payment to a third party.")

---

Litigation / Docket Check (this is where you asked about CAFC 2026)

• No Federal Circuit (CAFC) appeal docket specific to US 9,298,864 was found for 2026. The 2026 activity I found is all district-court activity in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. — Sherman Division, Judge Amos L. Mazzant), which was noted as transferred to the Southern District. The '864 patent is one of five patents-in-suit there ('192, '864, '678, '811, '579).
  • Claim construction hearing held 2026-04-23; Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order issued 2026-05-01.
  • On 2026-04-14, the USPTO granted Apple's ex parte reexamination request on claims 1 and 8 of the '864 patent (the notice lists reexams of all five asserted patents).
• Historical adjudications of the '864 patent (context, not 2026): it was asserted in Wapp Tech LP v. Seattle SpinCo, Inc. (Micro Focus), No. 4:18-cv-469, which produced a $172,554,269.00 jury damages verdict dated 2021-03-05. The '864 patent also appeared in earlier Wapp suits against Wells Fargo (4:18-cv-00501), JPMorgan Chase (4:23-cv-01137), Bank of America (4:21-cv-00670), and others.

CAVEAT ON CAFC: My searches did not surface a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal docket or opinion specifically addressing the '864 patent. Federal Circuit coverage for 2026 is incomplete in search results, so I cannot affirmatively rule out a pending appeal; I found no evidence of one. Also note that if the '864 patent expires (anticipated 2026-06-09, per Google Patents), any appeal would concern past damages only.

---

Confidence / Uncertainty Notes

• High confidence on title, inventor, assignee, application/filing/grant dates, priority chain, abstract, and the independent-claim language (claim 1 corroborated in court filings; claims 20, 29, 31, 32 corroborated in the complaint/claim-construction record).
• Moderate confidence on the total claim count of 35: the search results show claim numbering through at least claim 35, and the sibling patent US 10,691,579 has 36 claims; I did not independently verify the '864 patent's exact final claim count from the face of the patent, so treat "35 claims" as an inference rather than a confirmed figure.
• I interpreted all identifiers literally as 9,298,864 and did not conflate it with the similarly numbered US 9,971,678, US 10,691,579, US 10,353,811, or the unrelated US 9,635,108 patents that appeared in results.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9,298,864 specifically, being careful to exclude similarly-numbered patents.

Let me pull the Stanford NPE database page and check additional cases in the family.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,298,864 ("the '864 Patent")

Important scoping note: I interpreted the number literally as 9,298,864. My searches surfaced a different patent, U.S. 9,928,864 (MR Technologies GmbH v. Western Digital/Seagate), which is unrelated and is excluded. Everything below concerns the Wapp Tech / Poulin "network simulation for mobile application development" patent.

Date caveat (flagging a discrepancy): The task states the current date is April 26, 2026, but my search results returned documents dated after that date — including the Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order signed 5/1/2026 and a docket item filed 05/08/2026 in E.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-00230. Per your operating rules, I treat the search results as the current ground truth; the "April 26, 2026" framing appears to be stale. I flag this rather than silently resolving it.

---

Known litigation involving the '864 patent

All cases share the same plaintiff family (Wapp Tech Limited Partnership / Wapp Tech Corp.) and the same patent family (the '864 patent is a division of the continuation-in-part US 8,589,140, which is a CIP of US 7,813,910). The '864 patent is typically asserted alongside US 8,924,192 ('192), US 9,971,678 ('678), US 10,353,811 ('811) and US 10,691,579 ('579).

Additional asserted-patent cases (venue entries) noted but not fully substantiated

The Google Patents litigation feed for the '864 patent additionally lists:

• Delaware District Court, No. 1:18-cv-01585 (2018).
• California Southern District Court, No. 3:24-cv-02256 (2024).

I could not independently confirm the specific defendants, filing dates, or outcomes for these two entries, and I will not guess at party names or infer '864 involvement beyond the fact that the '864 patent is listed in the feed. Treat these as unverified leads requiring a PACER/courtlistener docket pull.

---

Summary of the '864 patent's litigation posture

• Lead adjudication: Wapp Tech v. Micro Focus (Seattle SpinCo), 4:18-cv-00469 — the only case to reach a merits verdict. The '864 patent was one of the three patents on which the jury found willful infringement, contributing to the $172.5M verdict. That case settled before judgment finality, so there is no Federal Circuit appellate decision on the '864 patent from that matter.
• Assertion pattern: The patent has been asserted against software vendors (Micro Focus, HPE) and, indirectly, end-user financial institutions (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase) for their use of the accused development tools. Most such cases ended in confidential settlements / dismissals with prejudice with no validity ruling.
• Currently active: Wapp Tech v. Apple, Capital One, Frost Bank, 4:25-cv-00230 (now in S.D. Cal.), is the live matter, with a May 1, 2026 claim construction order and a pending ex parte reexamination of '864 claims 1 and 8.

---

Confidence and uncertainty

• High confidence: Cases 1–8 at the level of parties, court, case number, and general outcome — these are corroborated by the jury verdict form, the Blackline claim-construction order, PACER-derived reporting, and the Justia/CourtListener dockets.
• Moderate confidence: The precise filing dates of the 2018 HPE (4:18-cv-00468) and Bank of America (4:18-cv-00519) suits (July 2018 per the related-case recitation, but exact day not independently confirmed).
• Low confidence / unverified: The Delaware 1:18-cv-01585 and California Southern 3:24-cv-02256 entries — listed in the Google Patents feed but without corroborated defendant/outcome data.
• Explicitly not found: No Federal Circuit (CAFC) appeal docket (2026 or otherwise) specific to the '864 patent surfaced in my searches. I cannot affirmatively rule one out, but I found no evidence of one.
• Note on expiration: Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of 2026-06-09 for the '864 patent; any litigation after that date would concern past damages only.

I did not auto-correct any identifiers. The reexamination is control no. 90/016,034 (granted 2026-04-14) on claims 1 and 8 only — distinct from the court case numbers above.

I'll verify the "no PTAB proceedings" default against live sources, since this patent has an extensive litigation history that often correlates with IPR activity.

Let me search specifically for any IPR/CBM/PGR docketed against the '864 patent, and check whether Apple or others filed AIA trials in this family.

The key finding so far: there's an IPR2025-01325 by Capital One, but it targets the '192 sibling patent, not the '864. Let me confirm no AIA trial exists on the '864 specifically, including any CBM (the banks cases could have triggered one) and any Micro Focus IPR.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 9,298,864 B2

Note on scope: the task asks for AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM). I ran live searches to test the structured-data default, and the searches corroborate it — with one important near-miss that I flag explicitly below so it isn't mistaken for an attack on this patent.

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 9,298,864 B2. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my web searches surfaced none either. There is no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, and no PTAB appeal directed at the '864 patent.

The defensive posture this gives a defendant is therefore not "hardened patent that survived IPRs," and it is emphatically not "claims canceled — demand letter is baseless." It is the third thing: an untested patent whose claims sit exactly as issued, with all AIA-trial grounds still fully available. Nothing at the PTAB narrows the '864's scope, and no § 315(e) estoppel attaches to anyone on this patent. For a defendant, that is a permissive posture — the whole IPR toolkit remains open — but it also means you have no ready-made invalidity win to borrow. One adjacent fact cuts the other way and belongs at the top of your risk list: Apple's ex parte reexamination of claims 1 and 8 was granted in 2026, which is a live validity threat the patent owner now has to defend (more below).

---

Proceedings on US 9,298,864

None — no IPR, PGR, or CBM has been filed against this patent

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceeding on file (USPTO ODP; corroborated by web search).
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The '864 is a clean slate at the PTAB. No claim has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the Board; no petitioner is estopped; no FWD can be waved at a plaintiff. If you are weighing an IPR, you are not the second mover — but you also cannot free-ride on someone else's result.

---

Adjacent proceedings you must NOT mistake for actions on this patent

These are real and material to your defense, but none of them is an AIA trial, and none of them is against the '864 as an AIA proceeding. Flagging them because a careless read of the docket could conflate them.

IPR2025-01325 — Capital One, N.A. v. Wapp Tech Corp. (targets the '192, not the '864)

• Type: Inter Partes Review — but of US 8,924,192 ("the '192 Patent"), a sibling in the same family.
• Filed: Petition dated 2025-07-18 (per the record cited in Wapp's district-court briefing: Capital One, N.A. v. Wapp Tech Corp., No. IPR2025-01325, Paper 2 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2025)).
• Status: Capital One filed an authorized Reply to the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (per a filing dated 2025-11-18 referencing IPR2025-01325 / USP 8,924,192). This means the proceeding reached the POPR/reply stage — it does not yet tell us whether trial was instituted. I could not confirm an institution or denial decision from the sources retrieved, so treat institution status as unknown rather than assumed.
• Relevance to the '864: The '192 and '864 are different patents with different claims. An IPR on the '192 says nothing about the '864's patentability, and it creates no estoppel as to the '864. Its only value to a '864 defendant is strategic/technical: the parties are litigating overlapping subject matter (mobile-app simulation/resource profiling) and the art and expert positions developed there may be reusable.
• Defensive value: Do not cite this as an attack on the '864. If Wapp's demand letter leans on the '192, this is highly relevant; if it leans on the '864, this proceeding is background only.

Ex parte reexamination of '864 claims 1 and 8 (USPTO control no. 90/016,034) — not an AIA trial

• Type: Ex parte reexamination (central reexamination), not IPR/PGR/CBM.
• Requested by: Apple Inc. (as third-party requester).
• Granted: 2026-04-14, on claims 1 and 8 of the '864 patent. Apple gave notice of the grant to the district court on 2026-05-08 (E.D. Tex. No. 4:25-cv-00230, Dkt. 171).
• Grounds / SNQ: The examiner found a substantial new question of patentability based on Morrison in view of Kazman and Linton — none of which was cited or considered during original prosecution. Morrison (J2ME / MIDlet emulation and memory monitoring), Kazman (resource/battery/bandwidth simulation), and Linton (wireless application simulation / QoS-driven impairment) map closely onto the '864's core of device emulation + resource profiling + network simulation.
• Why it matters: This is the single most important validity event touching the '864. A granted reexam is a merits-stage validity proceeding at the USPTO; while it doesn't carry § 315(e) IPR estoppel, it can cancel or narrow claims 1 and 8. Because claim 1 is the '864's lead independent system claim (the one asserted in the Micro Focus trial), a cancellation there would gut the primary infringement theory.
• Caveat: I retrieved the Order Granting Request and the SNQ analysis, not a reexamination certificate. No claim of the '864 has been canceled. As of this writing the reexam is live and unresolved.

No CBM found

Given Wapp's bank-focused campaign (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase), a Covered Business Method review would have been a natural vehicle. I found no CBM on the '864. Note also that CBM review sunset for petitions in September 2020, so that door is closed regardless.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '864. Every claim is UNSUSTAINED and UNTESTED at the PTAB — nothing canceled, nothing confirmed. The Board has never touched this patent. That is the whole picture: there is no IPR-narrowed claim set to hand a defendant, and no confirmed claim set for the patent owner to hide behind. The real claim-status risk lives in the reexam: claims 1 and 8 are under reexamination on a granted SNQ over Morrison/Kazman/Linton. If you are being asserted on claim 1 or claim 8, monitor 90/016,034 closely — an adverse outcome would be dispositive for that theory. The other independent claims (20, 29, 31, 32) are not in the reexam and remain untouched by any post-grant or reexam proceeding, so a defendant attacked only on those claims gets no help from the Apple reexam.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on the '864 at all — no petitioner has ever been through an IPR on it, so nobody is barred from raising anything. For a current defendant, the full field of § 102/§ 103 art is available, including the very Morrison/Kazman/Linton combination the examiner just found to raise an SNQ. Be aware of two practical frictions: (1) reexam art you rely on can be used, but Apple is not your privy and creates no estoppel for or against you; and (2) if a first IPR is ever instituted on the '864 and you are a privy of that petitioner, § 315(e)(2) will bite at the FWD. Also track the October 2025 Director Squires institution-policy change (institution decisions now made by the Director with a summary notice) and the proposed October 2025 rules that would bar an IPR against a patent that has already survived a validity challenge — including an ex parte reexamination. That proposal, if finalized, could make the pending '864 reexam a shield against a later IPR on the same claims. That is a genuine strategic wrinkle for a defendant deciding whether to rush an IPR now.

Pattern signals. Wapp Tech is a serial enforcer with a long E.D. Tex. campaign (Hewlett-Packard, Micro Focus/Seattle Spinco, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and now Apple/Capital One/Frost). The family has a $172,554,269 jury verdict (Micro Focus, 2021) and a $67.5M settlement from Micro Focus. Notably, despite that enforcement history, the '864 has never drawn an IPR — defendants have instead chosen district-court § 101 (Capital One's rule 12 motion, denied as moot) and ex parte reexam (Apple). The one IPR in the family, Capital One's IPR2025-01325, targets the '192, not the '864. I found no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) challenge on this patent.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you're a defendant and your theory rides on claim 1 or 8 of the '864: do not represent that any claim has been invalidated — none has. Instead, pull the Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, control no. 90/016,034, from the '864 file wrapper at USPTO Patent Center and confirm current reexam status. The granting order's SNQ analysis (Morrison + Kazman + Linton) is a ready-made invalidity roadmap, and Apple's district-court notice with exhibits is public at E.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-00230, Dkt. 171 (CourtListener docket).
• If you want PTAB coverage the patent doesn't yet have: an IPR on the '864 is procedurally available with no estoppel and no prior petitioner, and the Morrison/Kazman/Linton art is examiner-blessed as a substantial new question. But weigh the proposed October 2025 USPTO rules — if your patent has already survived the reexam, a later IPR may be barred; timing matters.
• If the patent owner points to the Micro Focus verdict as "validity confirmed": note that the FWD/validity findings there were district-court JMOL, not a PTAB outcome, and the '864's only current validity proceeding is the Apple reexam, which is unresolved. See the Micro Focus claim construction record at E.D. Tex. 4:18-cv-469, Dkt. 176 (2020-04-27).
• Confirm before relying: I could not verify from the retrieved sources (a) the institution status of IPR2025-01325, (b) any Final Written Decision or appeal in it, or (c) whether the '864 reexam has issued any action on the merits. Verify each at USPTO PTAB E2E and Patent Center before citing.

---

Confidence / uncertainty

• High confidence: No AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 9,298,864; IPR2025-01325 targets US 8,924,192, not the '864; ex parte reexam 90/016,034 of '864 claims 1 and 8 was granted 2026-04-14 on a Morrison/Kazman/Linton SNQ.
• Moderate confidence: that no CBM was ever filed on the '864 — my CBM-specific search was cut off by a tool step limit and I did not exhaustively confirm the negative. The ODP structured data showing no AIA proceedings supports the conclusion but should be re-checked against PTAB E2E.
• Could not confirm: institution status and any FWD in IPR2025-01325; any merits action in the '864 reexam; any Federal Circuit appeal touching this family in 2026 (consistent with the earlier-generated section's caveat).
• Not asserted: I have not represented that any '864 claim is canceled, infringed, or adjudicated. It is not.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,298,864 across the USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and litigation/ownership databases.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, the Thinkvillage Kiwi LLC connection, and the entity structure.

I've hit the tool-call limit, so I'm reporting what the retrieved sources actually establish — and I'm being explicit about the one part of the assignment record I could not retrieve (reel/frame numbers and recorded correspondents), rather than inventing them.

---

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9,298,864 B2

Sourcing note (read first): The authoritative patent text supplied lists title, inventor, original/current assignee, and a single Google Patents legal event (2023-11-29 "Assigned to WAPP TECH CORP."). My searches surfaced Wapp Tech's litigation footprint (RPX, Unified Patents, Stanford NPE DB, court filings), but did not return the USPTO Assignment Center detail rows — i.e., I could not read the actual reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent/correspondent address for this patent. I flag every place that data is missing below. I did not fabricate reel/frame IDs.

---

Inventors

• Sole inventor. Every patent in the family ('910, '192, '203, '864, '678, '811, '579, '875) names Poulin as the only inventor (confirmed in the justia/RPX court exhibits, e.g. US 10,691,579 and US 8,332,203 front pages listing "Inventor: Donavan Paul Poulin, Kelowna (CA)").
• Unusual pattern — founder-owned, not corporate-R&D. There is no evidence of the "all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months" tell. The opposite holds: the single inventor is also the assignor in the one recorded transfer (2023-11-29, Poulin → Wapp Tech Corp.), which is a founder perfecting title in his own company. This is a one-man portfolio, a pattern that sits at the boundary between "individual-inventor-started asserter" and operating company.

---

Original assignee

Wapp Tech Corp. — Red Deer, Alberta, Canada (front pages of sibling patents: "Applicant: Wapp Tech Corp., Red Deer (CA)"; "Assignee: WAPP TECH CORP., Alberta (CA)").

• Line of business: mobile-application performance engineering — software that emulates/model and network-conditions mobile devices so developers can profile an app's CPU, memory, graphics and network load before running it on hardware. The patent's own litigation narrative calls the family the "Performance Engineering Innovations" (Wapp's brief quoted in the HPE stay order).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear. Wapp describes migrating "performance risks … from months down to minutes by virtue of new performance engineering modeling." No commercial product page for Wapp's own emulator appeared in results; the accused products have always been third parties' tools (HPE/Micro Focus ADM, and the banks' mobile apps built with them). Unified Patents, by contrast, states flatly: "The patent is owned by Wapp Tech Corp., an NPE."
• Current status: Operating as a licensing/assertion entity. Per RPX (Mar. 8, 2025): "Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and its general partner Wapp Tech Corp." are the plaintiffs. So the asset sits in a limited partnership with the corporation as GP — a common assertion-vehicle structure. Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy; instead it won a $172,554,269.00 jury verdict (Micro Focus, 2021-03-05) and reportedly settled for $67.5M.

⚠️ Flagged discrepancy (entity chain): Google Patents / Unified Patents attribute the parent US 7,813,910 to "Thinkvillage-Kiwi, LLC" (listed as a "Parent Company" alongside Wapp Tech Corp on the Unified Patents page). The authoritative text you supplied lists the '864's original assignee simply as Wapp Tech Corp. This suggests an earlier IP-holding entity ("Thinkvillage-Kiwi, LLC") in the family's history that is not reflected in the '864 Google-Patents legal events. I could not confirm any recorded assignment from Thinkvillage-Kiwi to Wapp Tech, so I treat this as an open thread, not a finding.

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of the ownership events I could actually document. Only one is a recorded assignment of the '864 patent; the rest are prosecution/adoption events, not conveyances.

• 2013-11-19 (filing) / event logged 2013-11-19 — no reel/frame retrieved

  • Conveyance: Application filed by / original ownership (not a recorded assignment row)
  • Assignor: n/a (filing event)
  • Assignee/applicant: Wapp Tech Corp.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: invention captured by the founder's company at filing; implies a pre-existing (possibly unrecorded) inventor-to-company assignment.

• 2016-03-29 (grant) / event logged 2016-03-29 — no reel/frame

  • Conveyance: Patent granted (not an assignment)
  • Assignee: Wapp Tech Corp.
  • Context: grant; original assignee of record is Wapp Tech Corp.

• 2023-11-29 (recorded) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN — not retrievable from sources hit

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: POULIN, DONAVAN PAUL
  • Assignee: WAPP TECH CORP.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — this is precisely the field the task prioritized, and I could not read it. I will not guess a name or firm.
  • Context: perfecting/confirmatory assignment — the sole inventor transfers title to his own company mid-campaign, 23 days before the JPMorgan Chase complaint (4:23-cv-01137, filed Dec. 22, 2023).

• 2023-12-22 — JPMorgan Chase complaint (4:23-cv-01137) names the '864 (not an assignment).

Bottom line on the record: the USPTO Assignment Center does carry at least one recorded assignment for this patent (the 2023-11-29 Poulin → Wapp Tech Corp entry), but I could not obtain the reel/frame or the correspondent of record. There is no evidence of a transfer to any third-party NPE, no cascading LLC chain, and no recorded security interest in the sources retrieved.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9298864) — also https://patents.google.com/patent/US9298864/en (Legal Events) for the 2023-11-29 entry.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9298864
    2005 : Priority date from provisional
    2013 : Application filed by Wapp Tech Corp
    2016 : Patent granted
    2018 : First suits filed against Micro Focus and HPE
    2021 : 172M dollar verdict against Micro Focus
    2023 : Inventor records assignment to Wapp Tech Corp
         : JPMorgan suit filed
    2025 : Suit filed against Apple and banks

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (in the recorded chain). The patent never leaves the founder/company orbit. The recorded conveyance is Poulin → Wapp Tech Corp (2023-11-29), and Wapp Tech Corp is simultaneously the original assignee. There is a naming-suggestive entity, Thinkvillage-Kiwi, LLC (an LLC with an IP-holder-style name), attached to the parent '910 — but the "shell-entity transfer" definition requires a transfer to it with corroborating evidence (no products, registered-agent address, single-purpose LLC). I have no recorded assignment to support that, so: unclear, not present.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Wapp Tech Corp. does not appear on the classic Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / Conversant lists, but it does appear on the two independent asserter directories the task named:

   • Unified Patents PATROLL: "The patent is owned by Wapp Tech Corp., an NPE" (contest re US 10,353,811, opened 2022-03-04). Unified has also filed IPRs against Wapp family patents (e.g., IPR2025-01325 on the '192).
   • Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for 9298864, classifying the asserter as "Individual-inventor-started" (asserter type 5).
   • RPX Insight tags the Wapp Wells Fargo case as "NPE DC."
   • Corroborating volume: 8+ asserted suits across 2018–2025 (HPE 4:18-cv-468; Micro Focus/Seattle SpinCo 4:18-cv-469; Wells Fargo 4:18-cv-501; Bank of America 4:18-cv-519; BofA 4:21-cv-670; Wells Fargo 4:21-cv-671; JPMorgan 4:23-cv-1137; Apple/Capital One/Frost 4:25-cv-230).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. I could retrieve no correspondent for the single recorded assignment; therefore I cannot test for recurrence, and I will not name a firm. (Note: Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP appears as litigation counsel in the Wapp cases per a PTAB filing — that is litigation counsel, not a USPTO-assignment correspondent, and the two should not be conflated.)

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One recorded conveyance, no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses observable in the retrieved record.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present on timing, weak by definition. Recorded 2023-11-29, three weeks before the 2023-12-22 JPMC complaint. However, the rubric ties this signal to the first suit naming the patent — and Wapp asserted the '864 from 2018. So the chain was not "arranged to enable assertion"; title was perfected mid-campaign. Score: unclear (timing coincidence on a later suit, not the first).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Wapp bankruptcy; the family produced a $172.5M verdict and a reported $67.5M settlement.

7. Privateering — not present. Wapp is the original developer asserting its own patents; there is no operating-company → NPE hand-off, no SEC-filing evidence of a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates in Wapp's own LP/Corp structure and continues to litigate through 2025–2026 (Apple/Capital One/Frost, 4:25-cv-00230; claim construction order 2026-05-01). No RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN acquisition.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The portfolio is founder-owned and asserted against non-competitor financial institutions and Apple (banks cannot be "competitors" of a mobile-app-simulation vendor), and two independent asserter directories classify the owner as an NPE — Unified Patents ("owned by Wapp Tech Corp., an NPE") and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (asserter type "Individual-inventor-started") — with RPX tagging the campaign "NPE DC." That is one strong signal (#2). It does not rise to high confidence because the recorded chain shows no shell-LLC transfer, no cascading assignments, and no correspondent recurrence: the only recorded conveyance is a 2023-11-29 founder perfecting assignment (Poulin → Wapp Tech Corp), and the entity is the original assignee, not an acquirer — so the classic "manufactured assertion chain" tells are absent. I could not retrieve the reel/frame or correspondent for that assignment, which is the single biggest gap in this analysis; if the Assignment Center shows a repeat NPE correspondent on that reel, the confidence level should be revisited.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search "9298864"; and https://patents.google.com/patent/US9298864/en → Legal Events (2023-11-29 "Assigned to WAPP TECH CORP.").

---

Data gaps (stated explicitly, not inferred)

• Reel/frame numbers: not retrieved for any entry.
• Correspondent of record: not retrieved — no attorney/firm named, by design.
• Thinkvillage-Kiwi, LLC → Wapp Tech relationship: asserted by Unified Patents' parent-company field for the '910 patent, but no recorded assignment found linking it to the '864; left as an open thread.
• Claim for prior-section cross-reference: consistent with your earlier section's "Current assignee: Wapp Tech Corp." and the anticipated 2026-06-09 expiry — nothing in the ownership record contradicts it.

I'll search for the specific prior art references cited on the face of US 9,298,864. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search for the front-page "References Cited" section specifically.

Let me look for the patent's front-page references directly via patent PDF sources and FPO.

Important scope note before the analysis

I searched USPTO-facing sources (Google Patents, PatentCenter-indexed records, the E.D. Tex. docket materials on CourtListener, and the reexamination papers) for US 9,298,864 B2 specifically, and I did not auto-correct the number or blend it with the sibling patents (’192, ’678, ’811, ’579).

One honest limitation, stated up front: I could not retrieve the patent's own front‑page "References Cited" list (the examiner/applicant‑cited U.S. patent documents and foreign documents that appear on the face of the ’864 patent) from the search results available to me. The authoritative full text you supplied stops at the Detailed Description and does not include the front‑page citation block, and the web snippets I reached likewise did not surface that list. Per the "do not fabricate" rule, I am not going to invent patent numbers or dates for that block.

What I did find is more probative for a § 102 analysis anyway: a 2026 USPTO reexamination of the ’864 patent that identified specific prior art. That is the reference set below. I flag clearly which items are reexam‑based (confirmed) versus what remains unverified.

---

1. The most relevant, confirmed prior art — the 2026 reexamination references

Google Patents' litigation panel for US 9,298,864 lists Texas Eastern and other district‑court cases, and the 2025–26 Wapp Tech LP v. Apple Inc., No. 4:25‑cv‑00230 (E.D. Tex., transferred) record shows a reexamination proceeding. Per the reexam papers (Exhibit A, Case 4:25‑cv‑00230, Control No. 90/016,034):

• 2026‑04‑14: USPTO granted Apple's ex parte reexamination request on claims 1 and 8 of the ’864 patent.
• The Requester asserted that Morrison in view of Kazman and Linton raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) for claims 1 and 8.
• The record states: "None of Morrison, Kazman or Linton were cited or considered during original prosecution." (Exhibit A, ¶ 7, p. 2 of 13.)

(a) Morrison — printed publication (book/teaching text on J2ME)

(b) Kazman — printed publication (resource/simulation GUI)

(c) Linton — "Wireless Application Simulation Machine"

Reference → claim map (reexam theory)

The reexam's own summary: "In summary, it is agreed that Issue 1 raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1 and 8 of US Patent 9,298,864." (Exhibit A.)

---

2. What the patent's own face likely cites — and why I am not listing numbers

The ’864 patent is a division of US 12/705,913 (now US 8,589,140), which is a CIP of US 11/449,958 (now US 7,813,910), claiming priority to provisional 61/152,934 (2009‑02‑16) and 60/689,101 (2005‑06‑10). Google Patents' family panel confirms these and shows the patent's "Prior art keywords" as application, mobile device, authoring, model, network with prior‑art date 2005‑06‑10.

The examiner/applicant front‑page "References Cited" block would ordinarily list numerous U.S. patent documents, foreign documents, and "Other Publications" (e.g., Flash MX / Flash Lite / J2ME materials). Because I could not verify that list, I am not inserting numbers or dates for it. If you can supply the front page (patent PDF page 1) or the PatentCenter "References Cited" tab, I will map each item to the independent claims (1, 20, 29, 31, 32) under § 102(a)/(b)/(e) and § 103.

Note: the parent patents US 7,813,910 and US 8,589,140 are family members / priority documents, not § 102 prior art against the ’864 claims, so they should not be counted in an anticipation analysis.

---

3. Key takeaways and caveats

1. The single most relevant prior‑art set for US 9,298,864 as of the current date is Morrison + Kazman + Linton, as adopted by the USPTO in Control No. 90/016,034 and applied to claims 1 and 8.
2. All three were not considered during original prosecution — i.e., they are not part of the original face citations, which is why they carry fresh § 102/§ 103 weight.
3. Claim 1 turns on the "plurality of network characteristics … based on data of interaction with networks in non‑simulated environments"; Linton is the reference specifically aimed at that real‑world‑data limitation, with Morrison supplying the emulation/monitoring base and Kazman supplying the resource/network‑GUI simulation.
4. Verification flags: I confirmed the substance and claim mapping from the reexam exhibit, but I could not confirm the precise title, publisher, year, or patent number for Morrison, Kazman, or Linton, nor retrieve the ’864 patent's front‑page "References Cited" list. I deliberately did not fill these gaps with guesses. If you need those exact identifiers, the authoritative sources are the USPTO PatentCenter record for 90/016,034 (Reexam) and the ’864 patent PDF front page — both of which I recommend pulling directly.

If you'd like, tell me which specific claim (of 1, 20, 29, 31, 32) you want a line‑by‑line § 102 element chart for, and I'll build it against the references above and flag every element that is not squarely met.

I'll first try to ground this in actual prior-art references rather than inventing them. The patent text provided to me does not include a "Prior Art"/"Patent Citations" section, so let me search for the references actually cited on the face of US 9,298,864 and in the 2026 reexamination.

Excellent — I found the actual reexamination grounds. Now let me pin down the full citations for Morrison, Kazman, and Linton, and check for any IPR on the '864.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,298,864 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Preliminary source note (important — please read)

You instructed me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." I need to flag a discrepancy up front:

The authoritative patent text you supplied does not contain a "Patent Citations"/"Prior Art" reference list. The only "Prior Art" content on the fetched Google Patents page is the "Prior art keywords" line — application, mobile device, authoring, model, network — plus the CPC classification codes (G06F 11/3698, G06F 11/3457, G06F 11/3668, etc.). There is no cited-references table, "Similar Documents" table, or "Cited By" table in the document provided to me.

Rather than fabricate references, I reconstructed the prior art from two verifiable sources:

1. The face-of-patent references recovered from the family's front pages (via FreePatentsOnline and patentimages for the sibling '579 disclosure) — see FPO 11886323 and US 10,691,579 PDF.
2. The actual USPTO reexamination ground on the '864 patent — which is the single most probative §103 artifact in existence for this patent right now. On April 14, 2026, the USPTO (Reexam Control No. 90/016,034, Art Unit 3992) granted Apple's ex parte reexamination request on claims 1 and 8 of the '864 patent, finding a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) over Morrison in view of Kazman and Linton. Source: Exhibit A, Dkt. 171-1 and Notice of Ex Parte Reexaminations, Dkt. 171.

⚠️ Caveat: the April 2026 document is a grant of an SNQ, not a rejection or a final invalidity holding. It means an examiner found the combination raises a substantial new question. The merits have not been decided.

Also note: I could not locate the text of claim 8 in the material provided, so I cannot chart it element-by-element. The claim-construction order refers to "'864 Patent, Claims 1, 8" for the term "application," suggesting claim 8 tracks claim 1 (see the claim chart below).

---

1. What has to be proven (claim scope)

The independent claims to be addressed are 1 (system), 20, 29, 31, and 32 (methods) — full text in the prior section; I won't repeat it. For §103 the analytically important limitations are:

Critical date: earliest priority is 2005-06-10 (via 60/689,101) for the common specification; the '864-specific (CIP) subject matter claims priority through 12/705,913 → 61/152,934 (2009-02-16). Defendants in the 2026 case argue the relevant specification is the '910 patent and that applicant "deliberately broadened the disclosures of the '864 patent relative to the priority '910 patent" (Claim Construction Order, 5/1/2026). All three reexam references predate both dates, so the critical-date question does not rescue the claims.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA): a bachelor's in CS/EE (or equivalent) plus roughly 1–2 years' experience — or the equivalent — in mobile application development, device emulation, or network/system performance testing. The specification itself concedes this field was active and that "development packages (e.g., FlashMX by Macromedia) are available to run on a PC and allow development of Flash Player applications." That concession (applicant-admitted prior art) may be used to gauge the level of skill and to supply motivation to combine, even though it cannot itself be the basis of an IPR ground (Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 20-1558, -1559 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2022)).

---

2. The prior-art references

2.1 Morrison — Beginning Mobile Phone Game Programming (Sams)

Full cite per the reexam: Michael Morrison, "Beginning Mobile Phone Game Programming" (Sams). What the examiner credited it with (quotes from Exhibit A):

• J2ME / J2ME Wireless Toolkit — a suite of development tools and API for building MIDlets (p. 34).
• "The J2ME emulator emulates a physical mobile device on a desktop computer allowing a user to test MIDlets" (p. 51).
• Testing "without having to download and run them on a physical mobile device" (p. 52).
• Device selection via a dropdown menu ("DefaultColorPhone") in KToolbar; Table 2.1 lists mobile devices supported by the Toolkit (pp. 56–59).
• A memory monitoring tool — "run a MIDlet in the J2ME emulator causing a memory monitor window to launch… a memory trace for the MIDlet… status bar… 'Used', 'Free', and 'Total'" (pp. 202–204, fig. 17.7).

Maps to: the device model; device selection from a list; playing the application within the model; monitoring to determine resource utilization (memory); and displaying utilization in a monitor window.

2.2 Kazman — A Simulation Test-bed for Mobile Adaptive Architectures

Full cite per the reexam: Rick Kazman et al., "A Simulation Test-bed for Mobile Adaptive Architectures," Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 25, pp. 291–2xx (2003). Credited disclosures:

• A simulator GUI monitoring components (fig. 3).
• Simulator component types include a "resource component type" representing "usable system resources such as battery, CPU, memory and network bandwidth" (p. 5).
• A simulation run showing battery usage based on the battery resource available (pp. 5–7, fig. 4).
• "simulating and displaying network bandwidth and availability, changes in network bandwidth and availability" (p. 4).

Maps to: "a plurality of network characteristics indicative of performance of the mobile device" and their display; also the threshold concept for claim 31 (simulation "based on the battery resource available").

2.3 Linton — US 2003/0045298 A1

Linton, US 2003/0045298 A1 (filed 3/30/2001; published 3/6/2003). Credited disclosures:

• A "wireless application simulation machine" (200).
• Uses statistics of relevant Quality of Service parameters such as data throughput and delay as a function of location and velocity to simulate application behavior.
• QoS statistics are produced by driving throughout an area of interest and measuring real radio-signal characteristics — "average attenuation of signal strength, multipath spreading of signals as they bounce off obstructions, etc."
• The measured QoS statistics are then used "to operate on a data flow generated by any application to be evaluated."
• Selective Packet Impairment units 203, 208 may be "a single software program running a processor"; simulates bit/packet errors, packet loss, packet delays and latency (¶¶ [0015]–[0018], [0021]–[0023]).

Maps to: the "based on data of interaction with networks in non-simulated environments" limitation — Linton literally measures real networks in the field and feeds those measurements into a simulator.

2.4 Face-of-patent references (secondary; bibliographic data recovered, substance not independently verified)

From the family front pages (FPO 11886323; US 10,691,579 PDF), the following were of record and are candidates for the dependent/multi-device claims:

⚠️ I have only titles/numbers for these — I have not verified their disclosures. They should be treated as lead grounds to be verified against full text, not as established §103 grounds.

---

3. The primary §103 ground: Morrison + Kazman + Linton

This is the combination the USPTO has already found raises an SNQ as to claims 1 and 8.

3.1 Element-by-element mapping to claim 1

Result: every limitation of claim 1 is met by the three-reference combination. No single reference meets all limitations — Linton is the only one teaching "data of interaction with networks in non-simulated environments," so this is properly a §103 ground, not a §102 ground.

3.2 Motivation to combine (the KSR / Graham showing)

1. Same field of endeavor. All three are mobile/wireless application development, emulation, and performance-simulation tools — the exact field of the '864 patent.
2. Same articulated problem, and the references state it themselves. Morrison exists to let developers "test MIDlets… without having to download and run them on a physical mobile device." The '864 specification states the identical problem ("the only way to determine if an application plays on a particular mobile device is to transfer the app to the device and play it"). Kazman targets resource-constrained (battery/bandwidth) mobile architectures. Linton targets the unavailability of realistic network conditions. Combining them solves one composite problem: test an app against a simulated device and a realistic network without owning the handset or traveling to the network.
3. The specification itself supplies the motivation. The '864 spec repeatedly describes exactly this marriage — download network characteristics + device characteristics over the Internet, load a "network simulator interface" into the device model, and let the profile window show "resource utilization that includes the live or scripted effects of interaction with the wireless network" (Figs. 8, 13; ¶ describing simulator 810 with data provider 812 and event generator 814). An applicant's own roadmap strengthens, rather than defeats, the motivation showing.
4. Predictable result / no new operability. Each reference contributes its known function to a known architecture: Morrison = device emulator + resource monitor window; Kazman = resource/network metric simulation and GUI; Linton = network impairment driven by real measurements. The combination is the predictable aggregation of known software tools — a classic KSR "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" yielding no more than expected.
5. Design incentive / market pressure. The spec itself notes ~700M devices shipping and "a new handset model… every other day," making physical-device testing economically infeasible. That market pressure is an articulated reason to combine.
6. Reasonable expectation of success. Emulator + network-impairment integration was routine by 2005 (Linton's impairment units are "a single software program"; the J2ME Toolkit is extensible), so POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success.

3.3 Expected patent-owner rebuttals, and responses

---

4. Secondary grounds for the other independent claims

The reexam grant covers only claims 1 and 8. For the remaining independent claims, the following are the plausible combinations a defendant would run (supersets that reuse the Morrison + Kazman core):

⚠️ Again: for §4 I have titles, not disclosures, for the secondary references. These are verification leads, not settled grounds.

---

5. Assessment and residual uncertainty

Strength of the §103 case on claim 1: moderately strong. The USPTO has independently concluded, on a record Apple assembled, that Morrison + Kazman + Linton raises a substantial new question of patentability, and the three-reference mapping in §3.1 is, on the credited disclosures, complete for every limitation of claim 1 — including the notoriously specific "based on data of interaction with networks in non-simulated environments," which Linton's field-measurement-then-simulate architecture literally practices. The motivation showing in §3.2 is textually grounded in all three references and in the '864 specification.

Named uncertainties (do not treat as settled):

1. This is an SNQ grant, not a rejection. No examiner has yet applied the art to the claims. Wapp will have a full opportunity to traverse, amend, or argue secondary considerations.
2. Claim 8 is uncharted — I do not have its text. If claim 8 carries a limitation (e.g., a specific display or threshold feature) not present in Morrison/Kazman/Linton, the ground weakens as to claim 8.
3. Morrison's publication date must be confirmed against the 2005-06-10 / 2009-02-16 critical dates. The examiner accepted it as prior art; I have not verified the imprint date myself.
4. Kazman's page pin-cites (pp. 4–7, figs. 3–4) come from the examiner's summary; I have not read the paper.
5. The face-of-patent and secondary references in §2.4 and §4 are offered on bibliographic data only. Any §103 ground built on them must be verified against full text before it is asserted.
6. Consistency check with the prior section: the earlier summary listed independent claims 1, 20, 29, 31, 32 and a probable total of 35 claims. The reexam's targeting of claims 1 and 8 is consistent with claim 8 depending from claim 1 (the earlier summary listed claims 2–19 as dependents). No contradiction found. The remaining discrepancy is unchanged from the prior section: the exact final claim count (35) remains an inference, not a confirmed figure.

Bottom line: For §103 purposes, the operative, evidenced ground against claim 1 (and by dependency claim 8) is Morrison in view of Kazman in view of Linton, as found by the USPTO on April 14, 2026 — with the motivation resting on the shared field, the express problem statements in each reference, and the '864 specification's own description of interposing a downloaded network simulator interface into the device model. The remaining independent claims require additional secondary references (Hassan '453, Oracle '657, Apple '179, Bsquare '990, Fujitsu '611) whose disclosures I have not verified.