DCT

4:23-cv-01137

Wapp Tech Ltd Partnership v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-01137, E.D. Tex., 12/22/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a business location and banking facilities in Plano, Texas, and advertises for mobile application software engineers in that location.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of Apple's Xcode and Google's Android Studio integrated development environments to create its mobile banking applications infringes five patents related to systems and methods for emulating, testing, and monitoring mobile application performance.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software development tools that allow developers to simulate how a mobile application will perform on various devices and under different network conditions before the application is deployed to end-users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patented inventions have been cited as prior art by the USPTO and WIPO against patent applications from companies including Apple, Google, and HPE, suggesting the technology's foundational nature in mobile application development.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-06-10 Earliest Priority Date (’192, ’864, ’678, ’811, ’579 Patents)
2014-12-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 Issues
2016-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,298,864 Issues
2018-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,971,678 Issues
2019-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 Issues
2020-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 Issues
2023-12-22 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 - Systems Including Network Simulation for Mobile Application Development and Online Marketplaces for Mobile Application Distribution, Revenue Sharing, Content Distribution, or Combinations thereof

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty application authors face in ensuring their software will perform correctly on a wide variety of mobile devices, which have different hardware resources and connect to diverse networks, without a costly and time-consuming process of manually testing the application on each physical device type (’192 Patent, col. 1:23-2:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a software authoring environment with an emulator that creates a model of a target mobile device based on its specific performance characteristics. This allows a developer to play, monitor, and profile an application within this emulated environment to identify and correct system resource problems before the application is transferred to a physical device (’192 Patent, col. 2:17-22; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled developers to test applications for a rapidly expanding universe of mobile devices and network conditions efficiently within a single development environment, reducing development costs and time-to-market (Compl. ¶¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 (System):
    • A software authoring interface.
    • Configured to simultaneously visually emulate, 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 software authoring interface is further configured to simulate a network connection state encountered by the mobile device.

U.S. Patent No. 9,298,864 - System Including Network Simulation for Mobile Application Development

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge for developers of testing how a mobile application will perform under various real-world wireless network conditions in different geographical locations without being physically present in those locations (’864 Patent, col. 1:18-2:7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a developer can select a geographic location and a network operator, connect to that operator's development server, and download network characteristics to simulate the application's performance on a specific mobile device as if it were connected to that real-world network (’864 Patent, Fig. 13). This allows testing for network-specific issues like bandwidth limitations or latency (’864 Patent, col. 9:23-10:7).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allowed for more realistic and geographically specific performance testing of mobile applications, which is critical for applications that rely on network connectivity (Compl. ¶¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶82).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 (System):
    • A software testing interface.
    • Configured to simultaneously visually simulate, via one or more profile display windows, a plurality of operator network characteristics including at least bandwidth availability.
    • The bandwidth availability is based at least in part on bandwidth data predetermined from interactions between one or more mobile devices and at least one operator network.

U.S. Patent No. 9,971,678 - Systems Including Device and Network Simulation for Mobile Application Development

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a development system where an application is emulated on a model of a mobile device, and the system monitors and displays resource utilization (e.g., CPU, memory) over time. The system can display multiple graphical images of the resource utilization, with each image relating to a different resource but synchronized in time as the application runs, allowing developers to identify performance bottlenecks (’678 Patent, col. 1:22-2:9; col. 15:15-38).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 45 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Xcode and Android Studio's performance monitoring and profiling tools, which display metrics like CPU and memory usage over time, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶16-17, 23, 25, 90).

U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 - SYSTEM FOR DEVELOPING AND TESTING A MOBILE APPLICATION

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a method for emulating and profiling an application on a model of a mobile device. The system loads characteristics defining the device's performance, emulates the device using a model based on those characteristics, and then plays and monitors the application within the model to determine its resource utilization (’811 Patent, col. 1:23-2:11, Abstract). The system can display graphical images of resource utilization and correspond the utilization of a specific resource to the functions of the application responsible for it (’811 Patent, col. 15:15-16:17).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The complaint's allegations point to the profiler and instrumentation tools within Xcode and Android Studio, which allow developers to trace resource consumption back to specific functions or lines of code, as the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶¶17, 25, 98).

U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 - SYSTEMS INCLUDING DEVICE AND NETWORK SIMULATION FOR MOBILE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a software authoring environment that provides for collaborative or "para-authoring" development of a single application across multiple, geographically separate authoring environments. The system includes a para-monitor that publishes status information, allowing developers at different locations to view the testing and emulation of the application as it is being developed by a colleague (’579 Patent, col. 17:5-18:61).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 15 (Compl. ¶106).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which features of Xcode or Android Studio infringe this particular patent, but infringement may be alleged based on features that facilitate team-based development and collaborative debugging (Compl. ¶106).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant JPMorgan Chase’s use of Apple's Xcode and Google's Android Studio software to author, test, and verify the performance of its mobile banking applications, such as the "Chase Mobile" app (Compl. ¶¶66-67, 74).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant uses the full suite of tools within these Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) to create and maintain its mobile banking apps for iOS and Android, respectively (Compl. ¶¶67, 72). These tools allegedly include code editors, compilers, and, centrally to the dispute, emulators/simulators for various mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶14, 21). A screenshot in the complaint shows Xcode's interface for managing and configuring a list of simulated devices, such as different iPhone models (Compl. p. 8). The complaint further alleges that Defendant uses tools within these IDEs to simulate different network conditions, such as bandwidth and packet loss, and to monitor application performance metrics like CPU usage, memory consumption, and network activity (Compl. ¶¶15-17, 22-23). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Network Link Conditioner" utility, which allows developers to simulate network profiles like "3G" or "100% packet loss" (Compl. p. 9).
  • The complaint frames Defendant’s use of these tools as a business necessity to provide a fast and bug-free mobile banking experience for its more than 53 million active mobile users and to meet the performance criteria required for distribution on Apple's and Google's app stores (Compl. ¶¶30, 65, 68).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,924,192 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A software authoring interface... Defendant's use of the Xcode and Android Studio IDEs, which are described as authoring environments for creating mobile applications. ¶¶10, 74 col. 4:8-14
...configured to simultaneously visually emulate, via one or more profile display windows, a plurality of network characteristics indicative of performance of the mobile device when executing the application... The complaint alleges that Xcode's "Instruments" and "Network Link Conditioner" and Android Studio's "Profilers" and "Android Virtual Device Manager" provide displays that show the performance impact of simulated network conditions. ¶¶15-16, 22-23, 74 col. 9:46-10:29
...wherein the software authoring interface is further configured to simulate a network connection state encountered by the mobile device. The Xcode "Network Link Conditioner" and Android Studio "Android Virtual Device Manager" tools allegedly allow developers to select and simulate various network states, such as different speeds (e.g., 3G) or conditions (e.g., packet loss). ¶¶15, 22, 74 col. 11:4-12:12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether JPMorgan Chase's use of a third-party software tool (Xcode/Android Studio) constitutes direct infringement of a system claim directed to a "software authoring interface." Defendant may argue that it is merely an end-user and that the proper target for infringement of a system claim is the manufacturer or seller of the system (i.e., Apple or Google).
  • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused IDEs "simultaneously visually emulate" a "plurality of network characteristics" in the manner required by the claim. This may involve disputes over whether displaying a single performance graph affected by a network simulation meets the "plurality" and "simultaneously" requirements.

U.S. Patent No. 9,298,864 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system comprising a software testing interface... Defendant's use of the testing and simulation features within the Xcode and Android Studio IDEs. ¶¶11, 82 col. 4:10-14
...configured to simultaneously visually simulate, via one or more profile display windows, a plurality of operator network characteristics including at least bandwidth availability... The complaint alleges that tools like Xcode's "Network Link Conditioner" and Android Studio's AVD Manager allow developers to set network characteristics like bandwidth and view the resulting application performance in profiler windows. ¶¶15, 22-23, 82 col. 9:23-10:7
...wherein the bandwidth availability is based at least in part on bandwidth data predetermined from interactions between one or more mobile devices and at least one operator network. The complaint does not specify how the network profiles in Xcode/Android Studio are derived, raising the question of whether Plaintiff can show they are based on data from actual operator networks as required by the claim. ¶82 col. 11:2-12:13

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Similar to the '192 Patent, a central issue will be whether using the IDEs constitutes infringement of a system claim.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the origin of the network simulation data within Xcode and Android Studio. A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the simulated "3G" or "LTE" profiles are "predetermined from interactions between one or more mobile devices and at least one operator network," as opposed to being generic, theoretical models.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "software authoring interface" (’192 Patent, Claim 1) / "software testing interface" (’864 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the direct infringement theory against JPMorgan Chase. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to be the software product itself (Xcode/Android Studio), Defendant will argue it did not "make" or "sell" the infringing system. If it is construed more broadly to encompass a computer system running the software for its intended purpose, Plaintiff's theory of infringement by "use" may be more viable.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as an "authoring environment" which includes an emulator and a development tool, suggesting the complete system in operation (’192 Patent, col. 5:40-45). This may support a construction that covers the software as used by a developer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims describe the interface as being "configured to" perform certain functions, language often associated with the capabilities of the software product itself, rather than its active use by a customer. Figure 1A of the patents distinguishes between the "AUTHORING ENVIRONMENT 122" and the "FRAME BASED APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT TOOL 112," which could support an argument that the "interface" is the tool itself, separate from its user.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by instructing third parties to author mobile applications on its behalf using Xcode and Android Studio (Compl. ¶¶75, 83). The factual basis for this allegation, such as contracts with third-party development firms, is not detailed in the complaint.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit acquired "at least since the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶79, 87). This is a claim for post-suit willfulness, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of infringement liability: can a party that uses a widely available, off-the-shelf software tool for its intended purpose be held liable for direct infringement of system claims covering that tool, or is the infringement analysis properly directed at the software's manufacturers (Apple and Google)?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the generic network simulation profiles (e.g., "3G," "LTE") within Xcode and Android Studio are based on data "predetermined from interactions between...mobile devices and...operator network[s]," as expressly required by claims of the ’864 patent, rather than being purely theoretical models?
  • A central claim construction question will be the definitional scope of "software authoring interface." The viability of the direct infringement case against JPMorgan Chase may depend on whether this term is construed to cover the software product itself or the system as a whole when it is being actively used by a developer.