Wapp Tech v. JPMorgan Chase: Five Mobile Testing Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. filed suit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering mobile app performance-testing and simulation technology tied to tools like Xcode and Android Studio. After 445 days of litigation, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — ending all claims permanently, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
A five-patent mobile testing assertion against a major bank ends permanently
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. filed this infringement action on 22 December 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, asserting five U.S. patents — US10691579B2, US8924192B1, US10353811B2, US9298864B2, and US9971678B2 — against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The patents relate to mobile application performance simulation and testing, with the accused products tied to development environments including Apple’s Xcode, Google’s Android Studio, and the iOS and Android operating systems.
The case closed on 11 March 2025 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, meaning both parties jointly agreed to terminate the litigation permanently. The court ordered that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses are extinguished. Critically, each party was directed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees — a structure typically associated with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested adjudication on the merits. No damages award, royalty rate, or injunction is disclosed in the public record.
The 445-day duration from filing to closure, combined with a with-prejudice dismissal and split-cost arrangement, is consistent with a confidential settlement reached before trial. The Eastern District of Texas is a plaintiff-favored venue for patent assertions, which may have influenced JPMorgan’s calculus. Whether any license, cross-license, or payment was exchanged is not discernible from the public docket, and the underlying strength of the five patents remains untested by judicial ruling.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 445 days
445 days in E.D. Texas — longer than the median district court patent case resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars Wapp Tech from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent termination of the asserted claims. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, Wapp Tech cannot refile the same claims against JPMorgan Chase on these five patents in any federal court. The stipulated nature — both parties signed — signals mutual agreement rather than a unilateral withdrawal, reinforcing the finality of the outcome.
Permanent bar on re-litigationWapp Tech’s patents survive but the assertion against Chase ends permanently
While Wapp Tech retains ownership of all five patents and may assert them against other defendants, it permanently relinquishes its claims against JPMorgan Chase. The with-prejudice dismissal and equal cost-bearing arrangement suggests Wapp Tech secured some form of consideration — potentially a license — but this cannot be confirmed from the public record. The patents remain active and enforceable against the broader market.
Patents still live; Chase claims closedJPMorgan Chase secures permanent peace — but no invalidity ruling obtained
JPMorgan Chase achieves certainty: Wapp Tech cannot reassert these five patents against it. However, because the dismissal was stipulated rather than decided on the merits, no court has ruled the patents invalid or not infringed. JPMorgan Chase did not secure an invalidity judgment that could benefit the broader industry — other defendants facing the same patents cannot rely on this outcome as precedent.
Certainty gained; no precedential shieldFive untested mobile-testing patents remain a live threat across the sector
Financial institutions and enterprises deploying Xcode- or Android Studio-based mobile development pipelines should note that these five Wapp Tech patents were never invalidated or construed by the court. Any organisation using mobile app performance simulation or testing tools in commercial development may remain within the assertion landscape. The split-cost structure and with-prejudice filing are consistent with a pattern of selective licensing across targeted defendants.
Live IP risk for mobile dev sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wapp Tech Limited Partnership | Individual | Mobile app testing IP licensing entity — holder of US10691579B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Wapp Tech Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Company | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. — major U.S. financial institution and large-scale mobile app developerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alden Harris | Attorney | Counsel for Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carlos Ruiz | Attorney | Counsel for Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Lee Limbacher | Attorney | Counsel for Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Michael Young | Attorney | Counsel for Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Leslie V. Payne | Attorney | Counsel for Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Allan Bullwinkel | Attorney | Counsel for Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Heim Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wynne, Smith & Young, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Wapp Tech Limited PartnershipSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Blaney Harper | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Ira Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hannah Mehrle | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | How-Ying Albert Liou | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Israel Sasha Mayergoyz | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael E. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rita Jungwon Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Levent Herguner | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shaun William Hassett | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Bradley | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Walter Alexander Mostowy | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yury Kalish | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary James Marshall-Carter | Attorney | Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hill Wallack LLP | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (New York) | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter Minton PC | Law Firm | Representing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reproduces the parties’ stipulation verbatim, confirming dismissal with prejudice of all claims, counterclaims, and defenses — with no fee-shifting. The equal cost-bearing language is significant: courts only depart from the American Rule when a case is deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the absence of any such finding here suggests neither party sought — or could sustain — an exceptionality argument. The with-prejudice framing provides JPMorgan Chase with permanent res judicata protection against these specific claims, but the absence of any merits ruling leaves the five patents legally intact and fully assertable against other parties.
US10691579B2 — mobile application performance simulation and testing technology
US10691579B2 (application no. US15/083186) is the lead patent in a five-patent family asserted in this action. The portfolio spans application filing dates from 2012 through 2018, covering methods and systems for simulating mobile network conditions and evaluating application performance on iOS and Android platforms — the class of technology embedded in development environments like Apple’s Xcode and Google’s Android Studio. The patents collectively address how developers test app behaviour under variable network and device conditions before deployment.
For financial institutions, insurers, retailers, and any enterprise with a significant mobile app estate, this patent portfolio represents a non-trivial assertion risk. Wapp Tech’s decision to target JPMorgan Chase — one of the most sophisticated corporate mobile app operators in the U.S. — suggests confidence in the patents’ coverage breadth. With no invalidity or non-infringement ruling on record, competitors and adjacent companies using Xcode- or Android Studio-based CI/CD pipelines that incorporate performance simulation should conduct targeted FTO analysis across all five patent numbers before scaling mobile dev operations.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against US10691579B2 and related Wapp Tech patents?
Any organisation that uses Xcode, Android Studio, or third-party mobile performance simulation tools as part of its software development lifecycle — particularly in fintech, banking, insurance, or consumer apps — should consider an FTO review against this five-patent family. The fact that JPMorgan Chase, with its substantial legal resources, opted for a with-prejudice settlement rather than pursuing invalidity suggests the patents may have meaningful claim scope. Teams building or procuring mobile testing infrastructure are the primary risk group.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your mobile development toolchain against the claim language in US10691579B2, US8924192B1, US10353811B2, US9298864B2, and US9971678B2 simultaneously — identifying which specific claims present infringement exposure and surfacing prior art relevant to IPR petitions. Eureka also tracks Wapp Tech’s full assertion history, enabling your team to benchmark against prior settlements and anticipate likely demand ranges before any licensing approach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10691579B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile app testing patent cases in E.D. Texas and related venues
Browse related patent infringement actions asserting mobile application performance, simulation, or testing patents in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the mobile app testing IP landscape
Wapp Tech’s assertion against a top-five U.S. bank highlights growing IP risk at the intersection of fintech and mobile development tooling.
E.D. Texas remains a high-stakes venue for mobile software patent assertions
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Mazzant signals a plaintiff with confidence in the venue’s plaintiff-friendly reputation. Enterprises facing suit here face significant litigation cost pressure, which often drives early settlement before claim construction — consistent with this case’s 445-day arc and pre-trial resolution.
No invalidity ruling means Wapp Tech’s five patents are still fully deployable
Because no court adjudicated validity or infringement, Wapp Tech’s patents — covering mobile performance simulation tied to Xcode and Android Studio — remain unscathed. Companies in fintech, insurance, retail, and any sector with significant mobile app development operations should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and consider proactive FTO analysis.
Partnership v JPMorgan — key questions answered
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the Eastern District of Texas on 22 December 2023, asserting five patents covering mobile app performance simulation and testing. The case closed on 11 March 2025 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling on validity or infringement was issued.
Wapp Tech asserted five patents: US10691579B2, US8924192B1, US10353811B2, US9298864B2, and US9971678B2. These patents cover mobile application performance simulation and testing technology, with accused products including Apple’s Xcode, Google’s Android Studio, and the iOS and Android operating systems.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Wapp Tech from asserting the same five patents against JPMorgan Chase in any future action. JPMorgan Chase gains res judicata protection on these specific claims. However, no invalidity finding was made, so the patents remain enforceable against other parties and the ruling provides no industry-wide precedential protection.
No. The court’s dismissal order explicitly stated that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No damages, royalty, or injunction was awarded. The equal cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution and indicates neither party successfully argued the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Not directly. Because the case ended via stipulated dismissal with no merits ruling, the five Wapp Tech patents were never declared invalid or non-infringed. Other companies — particularly financial institutions and enterprises with mobile app development operations using Xcode or Android Studio — cannot rely on this outcome as a precedential shield and should independently assess their FTO exposure against this patent family.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.