DCT

4:25-cv-00230

Wapp Tech Ltd Partnership v. Apple Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00230, E.D. Tex., 08/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business within the district (including Apple-staffed "Apple Shops" within retail stores) and have committed acts of infringement, such as selling accused products and services, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' software development tools, primarily Apple's Xcode, and the mobile applications developed with them, infringe five patents related to systems for emulating and simulating mobile device hardware and network conditions to test application performance.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of ensuring mobile applications function reliably across a diverse and fragmented ecosystem of devices and network environments, making performance simulation a critical part of the development lifecycle.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details an extensive history of prior enforcement, including a $172 million jury verdict against Micro Focus International PLC on three of the patents-in-suit, which subsequently settled. It also alleges that Apple was put on notice of its alleged infringement through multiple channels, including a USPTO rejection of an Apple patent application that cited Plaintiff's patents as prior art, and subpoenas served on Apple in prior lawsuits against major banks which also settled.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-06-10 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-12-15 Apple files U.S. Application #12/969,494 related to network simulation
2011-07-20 Apple launches Xcode 4.0 and Network Link Conditioner (NLC)
2012-09-19 Apple begins selling devices (iPhones/iPads) with NLC pre-packaged
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
2018-07-02 Plaintiff files suit against Micro Focus International PLC
2019-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 Issues
2020-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 Issues
2021-03-01 Jury trial begins in the Micro Focus suit
2021-08-27 Plaintiff files suits against Wells Fargo and Bank of America
2022-09-02 Plaintiff serves subpoenas on Apple in Wells Fargo and Bank of America suits
2023-12-22 Plaintiff files suit against JPMorgan Chase
2024-07-23 Plaintiff serves subpoena on Apple in the JPMorgan Chase suit
2025-08-15 First Amended 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: At the time of the invention, mobile application developers faced significant challenges in testing how their applications would perform across a wide variety of mobile devices with different hardware and on diverse wireless networks with fluctuating performance (Compl. ¶¶ 77-81). Existing development tools either simulated application operation generically, without accounting for specific device constraints, or required the impractical and costly process of physically testing on every target device and network type (’192 Patent, col. 1:44-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a software authoring system that can simulate a specific network connection state that a mobile device is likely to encounter (Compl. ¶124; ’192 Patent, col. 16:1-12). This is achieved through a software interface that "simultaneously visually emulate[s]," via "profile display windows," a plurality of network characteristics (e.g., bandwidth, packet loss) that are indicative of the mobile device's performance while running the application, allowing developers to identify and correct performance issues before release (’192 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled developers to perform constraint-driven testing in a simulated environment, improving the reliability of mobile applications by ensuring they would function correctly on devices with less powerful hardware or on slower, less stable network connections (Compl. ¶¶ 97, 103).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 60 (’192 Patent, col. 16:1-12, col. 18:1-10).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A system for developing an application for a mobile device.
    • Comprising 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.
  • Independent Claim 60 includes the following essential elements:
    • A system comprising an application configured to enable a user to modify a photo on the mobile device.
    • Wherein the application is developed using a software authoring platform configured to simultaneously visually emulate, via one or more profile display windows, a plurality of hardware characteristics indicative of performance of the mobile device when executing the application.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’192 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 - "System for Developing and Testing a Mobile Application"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inventor's recognition that it was not enough to simply identify that performance problems existed; new tools were needed to help a developer pinpoint which specific parts of an application were underperforming due to device or network resource limitations (’811 Patent, col. 1:23-2:11; Compl. ¶83). Existing tools like Java/J2ME and Flash/FlashLite lacked the ability to correspond resource utilization with the specific functions of the application responsible for that utilization (Compl. ¶116).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a computer-readable medium with instructions for a development system that combines device simulation, network simulation, and multi-resource monitoring with a key diagnostic step: corresponding "the utilization of a specific displayed resource at a given time with one or more functions of the application responsible for that utilization" (’811 Patent, col. 15:15-44). This allows a developer to see a performance graph (e.g., a CPU spike) and immediately identify the specific function or line of code that caused it, drastically reducing debugging time (’811 Patent, Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a more direct and efficient method for debugging and optimizing mobile applications by creating a direct link between a performance problem (the "what") and its source in the application's code (the "where") (Compl. ¶¶ 102, 170).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’811 Patent, col. 15:15-44).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium with instructions that cause a computer to perform the following essential steps:
    • Display a list of mobile device models for a user to select, where each model includes one or more performance characteristics.
    • Simulate at least one characteristic of the selected mobile device model.
    • Simulate one or more characteristics of a network on which the selected device can operate.
    • Monitor utilization of a plurality of resources over time as the application is running.
    • Display simultaneously two or more graphical images of the application's resource utilization, each relating to a different resource.
    • Correspond the utilization of a specific displayed resource at a given time with one or more functions of the application responsible for that utilization.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’811 Patent.

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a system for testing mobile applications where the simulated network characteristics are based on data from real-world interactions with "non-simulated environments" (’864 Patent, col. 13:66-14:3; Compl. ¶145). This allows for more realistic testing by using data captured from actual networks to inform the simulation.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶244).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple's Xcode and Google's Android Studio infringe by providing tools that simulate network conditions for mobile application testing (Compl. ¶¶ 245-246).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a system for testing applications where the simulation of "operator network characteristics" (like bandwidth availability) is based on predetermined data from interactions between mobile devices and at least one operator network (’678 Patent, col. 14:4-9; Compl. ¶158). This focuses the simulation on carrier-specific network performance data.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶263).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple's Xcode and Google's Android Studio infringe by providing tools that simulate operator-specific network conditions for mobile application testing (Compl. ¶¶ 264-265).

U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 - "Systems Including Device and Network Simulation for Mobile Application Development"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method where a computer is instructed to monitor resource utilization of an application "running on a simulation of the mobile device" and then "correspond the utilization of a specific displayed resource" with the functions or code responsible for it (’579 Patent, col. 14:25-29; Compl. ¶181). It also includes initiating transmission of the application to either a simulation or a physical device.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 15 (Compl. ¶301).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple's Xcode and Google's Android Studio infringe by providing tools that allow developers to monitor resource usage in a simulator and identify the corresponding code, and then deploy the application (Compl. ¶¶ 302-303).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The primary accused instrumentalities are Apple's Xcode Development Tools and, by extension, Google’s Android Studio, which are software suites used by developers to create mobile applications (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 189, 197). The complaint also accuses mobile applications developed with these tools (e.g., Apple Photos, Capital One Mobile) and the mobile devices that are sold with these applications pre-installed (e.g., iPhones) (Compl. ¶¶ 193, 201, 214).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Xcode provides an integrated development environment ("IDE") that includes a code editor, a compiler, and tools to test and verify application performance on a variety of emulated devices and under various simulated network conditions (Compl. ¶¶ 50-53). Key accused features include the "Devices and Simulators" window for emulating different Apple hardware, the "Network Link Conditioner" for simulating network properties like bandwidth and packet loss, and "Instruments" and "Time Profiler" for monitoring and diagnosing resource utilization such as CPU and memory usage (Compl. ¶¶ 53-56). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Xcode "Network Link Conditioner Utility," which provides options to simulate various network profiles such as "3G" or "100% packet loss" (Compl. ¶54, p. 22).
  • Xcode is alleged to be the essential tool for developing applications for Apple's iOS ecosystem, which includes iPhones and iPads (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 189). The complaint asserts that the availability and functionality of these development tools are critical to the success of Apple's mobile devices and its App Store, as they enable third-party developers to create the applications that drive hardware sales (Compl. ¶190).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’192 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system for developing an application for a mobile device comprising: a software authoring interface... Apple's Xcode is described as a software authoring environment or IDE tailored for creating applications for mobile devices. ¶49 col. 2:25-30
...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; Xcode's "Network Link Conditioner" tool allows developers to simulate network characteristics like bandwidth and packet loss. The "Instruments" tool simultaneously displays performance data (e.g., network usage) in graphical windows. ¶¶54-55 col. 9:46-53
wherein the software authoring interface is further configured to simulate a network connection state encountered by the mobile device. Xcode's "Network Link Conditioner" simulates various network connection states, such as "3G," "EDGE," or "High Latency DNS," which are conditions a mobile device would encounter. ¶54 col. 10:29-37

’811 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
display a list of a plurality of mobile device models from which a user can select... Xcode's "Devices and Simulators" window displays a list of simulated devices, such as "iPhone 14 Pro Max" and "iPad Pro," from which a developer can select a target device for testing. ¶53 col. 5:53-56
simulate at least one of the one or more characteristics indicative of the mobile device corresponding to the selected mobile device model; Xcode's simulator emulates hardware characteristics of the selected device, allowing developers to verify application performance on a simulated device running on a computer. ¶53 col. 1:50-62
simulate one or more characteristics indicative of a network on which the mobile device corresponding to the selected mobile device model can operate; Xcode's "Network Link Conditioner" tool allows developers to simulate network properties such as bandwidth, packet loss, and latency for the emulated device. ¶54 col. 8:41-51
monitor utilization of a plurality of resources over time as the application is running; Xcode's "Instruments" tool provides monitors for properties such as CPU usage, memory usage, and network activity over time while an application is running. ¶55 col. 7:1-4
display simultaneously two or more graphical images of the application's resource utilization, wherein each graphical image relates to a different resource; The "Instruments" tool displays multiple simultaneous graphs showing different resource metrics, such as separate graphical timelines for CPU load, memory usage, and network packets. ¶55 col. 8:1-4
correspond the utilization of a specific displayed resource at a given time with one or more functions of the application responsible for that utilization. Xcode's "Time Profiler" tool is alleged to display a call tree that corresponds resource utilization (e.g., CPU time) with the specific functions and methods in the application's code responsible for that usage. The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Xcode: Time Profiler," which visually links execution time percentages to specific symbol names in the code (Compl. ¶56, p. 25). ¶56 col. 6:31-35

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the separate windows for network configuration (Network Link Conditioner) and performance display (Instruments) meet the "simultaneously visually emulate...a plurality of network characteristics" limitation of the ’192 patent, which could be argued to require a more integrated display. The complaint alleges that prior court constructions of similar terms support its infringement theory (Compl. ¶126).
  • Technical Questions: For the ’811 patent, a key technical question will be what level of specificity is required by the term "correspond." The analysis may focus on whether the "Time Profiler" in Xcode provides a sufficiently direct link between a specific point on a resource graph and the exact function call that caused it, as required by the claim, or if the link is more general.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "simultaneously visually emulate, via one or more profile display windows" (’192 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the operation of the claimed system. Its construction determines how the simulation of network characteristics and the display of performance data must be integrated. The complaint notes that this and similar phrases have been construed in prior litigation, suggesting its importance and potential for dispute (Compl. ¶126).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes displaying resource utilization "in real time as application 104 is played" (’192 Patent, col. 7:50-52) and shows various user interface windows that, while potentially separate, work together as part of a single system (e.g., '192 Patent, Figs. 7, 12). This may support an interpretation where "simultaneously" refers to the system's concurrent operation rather than requiring a single, unified display window.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the '910 patent (incorporated by reference into the '192 patent) shows a single window containing both an emulated mobile device display and a performance profile graph (’192 Patent, col. 4:10-14). A party could argue that this embodiment limits the term to a more integrated visual presentation.

The Term: "correspond the utilization of a specific displayed resource at a given time with one or more functions of the application responsible for that utilization" (’811 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core diagnostic capability of the invention: linking a performance issue to its source code. Practitioners may focus on this term because the strength of the infringement allegation depends on whether Xcode's tools provide this specific cause-and-effect linkage, rather than just displaying two sets of data concurrently.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the goal is to "identify areas within application 104 where...performance of mobile device 114 would be stressed" (’811 Patent, col. 6:31-35). This purpose-driven language may support a construction that covers any tool that allows a developer to make the connection between resource usage and a function, even if not through a single, direct pointer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "at a given time" suggests a precise, point-in-time correlation. A defendant may argue this requires a direct, interactive link—such as clicking on a spike in a CPU graph and being taken directly to the line of code that was executing at that instant rather than the more general call-stack summary shown in the complaint's Time Profiler screenshot (Compl. ¶56, p. 25).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple induces infringement by providing the accused Xcode software to its customers, including co-Defendants, along with extensive documentation, marketing, and technical support that instruct and encourage users to utilize the allegedly infringing features (e.g., the device simulator and network conditioner) (Compl. ¶¶ 194, 229).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement has been willful based on pre- and post-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringement allegations. The alleged knowledge stems from: (1) communications with Plaintiff regarding its patent portfolio between 2011 and 2014; (2) a USPTO rejection of Apple's own patent application for similar technology which cited Plaintiff's patents as prior art; and (3) multiple subpoenas served on Apple in prior lawsuits against Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase that detailed the infringement allegations regarding Xcode (Compl. ¶¶ 235-236, 254).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and prior construction: will the functionality of Apple's Xcode tools, as presented in the complaint, fall within the scope of key claim terms like "simultaneously visually emulate" and "correspond," particularly as those or similar terms may have been construed in Plaintiff's extensive prior litigation history?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of willfulness based on knowledge: the complaint alleges Apple had knowledge of the patents and infringement allegations from multiple distinct sources over many years, raising the question of what evidence will demonstrate the timing and extent of this knowledge and whether it rises to the level of willfulness or egregious conduct required for enhanced damages.
  • A foundational legal question, foreshadowed by the complaint's detailed discussion, may be one of claim eligibility and form: does Claim 60 of the ’192 patent, which recites a "system comprising an application...developed using a software authoring platform," define a patent-eligible apparatus or an impermissible attempt to claim a product by the process used to create it?