Wrinkl v. Meta: Messaging Patent Claims Dismissed with Prejudice in Delaware
Wrinkl, Inc. brought patent infringement claims against Meta Platforms, Instagram, and WhatsApp over two messaging patents, targeting Facebook Messenger, Workplace Chat, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Judge Richard G. Andrews granted defendants' motion to dismiss, extinguishing all claims with prejudice across both asserted patents after 1,112 days of litigation.
Messaging Patent Lawsuit Against Meta Ends in Full Dismissal with Prejudice
Wrinkl, Inc. filed suit against Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and WhatsApp, LLC in the District of Delaware on October 2, 2020, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,860,198 and 10,728,192. The accused products included Facebook Messenger, Facebook Workplace Chat, the Instagram app, and WhatsApp Messenger — collectively representing some of the most widely used messaging platforms in the world. Wrinkl was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP; the Meta defendants were represented by Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.
The case closed on October 19, 2023, with Judge Richard G. Andrews granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Wrinkl's competing motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Wrinkl's complaint with prejudice as to all claims under both asserted patents. The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice, meaning Wrinkl is barred from re-asserting the same patent claims against these defendants in a new action. The court's accompanying Memorandum Opinion contains the substantive reasoning, though the specific grounds are not reproduced in the available record.
The litigation ran 1,112 days — slightly over three years — before reaching a terminal disposition without trial. Dismissal with prejudice at the pleading or motion stage, rather than after claim construction or trial, suggests the court may have found a threshold deficiency in the complaint, though the precise basis is set out in the Memorandum Opinion rather than in the docket entry itself. The specific legal grounds for dismissal, and whether any appeal was filed, are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1112 days
1,112 days — case ran approximately three years from filing to close
US9860198B1 & US10728192B2 — Messaging Platform Technology Patents
Any company developing real-time messaging, workplace chat, or social messaging features — particularly those with functional similarities to Facebook Messenger, Instagram direct messaging, or WhatsApp — should consider whether US9860198B1 and US10728192B2 remain relevant to their product roadmap. The dismissal in this case does not constitute a finding of invalidity or ineligibility; the patents may still be asserted against third parties.
Official order — verbatim text
Judge Andrews denied Wrinkl's motion to dismiss and simultaneously granted the Meta defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to all claims under both asserted patents. The phrase 'for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion' indicates that the substantive legal basis — whether rooted in pleading sufficiency, patent eligibility, or another ground — is contained in a separate opinion rather than the order itself. A dismissal with prejudice at this stage forecloses any subsequent refiling of the same claims against these defendants.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice: a terminal, merits-binding outcome
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. It extinguishes the plaintiff's claims permanently — Wrinkl cannot refile the same infringement claims based on US9860198B1 or US10728192B2 against these defendants. The court entered this ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss, meaning the case ended before claim construction or trial.
Permanent bar on refilingWrinkl's infringement claims are permanently extinguished
Wrinkl loses the ability to pursue these specific infringement claims against Meta, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, any future enforcement action based on the same patents against the same defendants on the same accused products would be barred by res judicata. Whether the underlying patents retain enforceability against other third parties is a separate question not resolved by this order.
Claims barred; patents may surviveMeta and its subsidiaries secure a complete, permanent defence
Meta Platforms, Instagram, and WhatsApp obtained dismissal with prejudice across all claims and all accused products — Facebook Messenger, Workplace Chat, Instagram, and WhatsApp Messenger. The ruling eliminates litigation risk from Wrinkl under these two patents without the need for a full trial or an invalidity ruling. The specific grounds set out in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion may also provide persuasive precedent in future disputes involving similar claims.
Full defence, no liabilityMessaging patent enforcement faces a high dismissal-stage bar in Delaware
This outcome signals that messaging platform patents must clear significant pleading or substantive thresholds in the District of Delaware before reaching discovery. Companies holding messaging-related patents and considering enforcement against large platform operators should assess whether their claims can withstand a motion-to-dismiss challenge. The specific grounds in Judge Andrews' Memorandum Opinion are a key reference point for similarly situated patent holders.
High dismissal bar for messaging IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wrinkl, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Instagram, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | WhatsApp, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam J. Kessel | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frank E. Scherkenbach | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kayleigh E. McGlynn | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kelly A. Del Dotto | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence K. Kolodney | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nitika Gupta Fiorella | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven R. Katz | Attorney | Counsel for Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wrinkl, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan M. Billharz | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fan Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Ying | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen Jacobs | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard G. Frenkel | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Andrews | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the messaging platform patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Wrinkl v. Meta dispute — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities in messaging technology.
Wrinkl's messaging patent family beyond the two asserted patents
US9860198B1 and US10728192B2 are the asserted patents in this case, but Wrinkl may hold or have filed continuations, divisionals, or related applications in the messaging communications space. Tracking the broader Wrinkl portfolio reveals whether additional claims remain enforceable against platform operators or whether the portfolio narrows after this dismissal.
Wrinkl patent familyFiling trends in real-time and workplace messaging platform patents
The four accused products — Messenger, Workplace Chat, Instagram, WhatsApp — represent distinct messaging paradigms: consumer, enterprise, social, and end-to-end encrypted. Patent filing activity in real-time messaging protocols, message threading, presence signalling, and multi-platform synchronisation has accelerated in recent years. Understanding the density of this landscape informs both FTO analysis and R&D prioritisation.
Messaging platform filing trendsMeta's patent portfolio in messaging and communications technology
Meta Platforms holds a substantial patent portfolio spanning messaging infrastructure, encryption, notification delivery, and social communication features. Understanding Meta's filing activity across Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram-related communications patents reveals defensive moats and potential offensive positions that any competitor or licensing party should map before entering the space.
Meta communications IPUnderprotected claim space adjacent to US9860198 and US10728192
The dismissal of Wrinkl's claims without an invalidity finding leaves the specific technical claim space of these two patents in a legally ambiguous position. Adjacent inventions — such as AI-assisted message routing, cross-platform notification management, or federated messaging identity — may represent areas where new filings could capture differentiated coverage not blocked by the Wrinkl or Meta portfolios.
Adjacent messaging white spaceSimilar messaging patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware
Cases involving messaging platform patents dismissed at the motion stage in the District of Delaware, including comparable §101 eligibility and pleading challenges against major technology defendants.
What this case signals for the messaging platform IP landscape
A dismissal with prejudice on defendants' motion — across four major products — sets a meaningful precedent for messaging patent enforcement strategy.
Dismissal with prejudice at motion stage signals complaint-level vulnerability
When a court grants a defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice — before claim construction or trial — it typically signals a fundamental deficiency in the complaint itself, whether on eligibility, specificity, or another threshold ground. Patent holders targeting large messaging platforms should stress-test complaints against motion-to-dismiss standards before filing in Delaware.
Meta's three-entity defence structure may inform future multi-product patent suits
The coordinated defence of Meta Platforms, Instagram, and WhatsApp under a single law firm suggests a unified litigation posture across the Meta family of apps. Plaintiffs asserting patents against multiple Meta subsidiaries should anticipate consolidated, well-resourced responses at every procedural stage.
Wrinkl v Meta — key questions answered
Wrinkl, Inc. sued Meta Platforms, Instagram, and WhatsApp in the District of Delaware for infringing US9860198B1 and US10728192B2, covering messaging platform technology. Judge Richard G. Andrews granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Wrinkl's competing motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to all claims under both patents. The case closed October 19, 2023, after 1,112 days.
Wrinkl asserted two patents: US9860198B1 (application no. US15/431077) and US10728192B2 (application no. US16/712952). Both were asserted against Facebook Messenger, Facebook Workplace Chat, the Instagram app, and WhatsApp Messenger. The specific claims asserted and their technical scope are not reproduced in the publicly available docket entry.
Dismissal with prejudice bars Wrinkl from refiling the same infringement claims against Meta, Instagram, and WhatsApp on these two patents. However, the order does not constitute a finding of invalidity or ineligibility — the patents themselves are not cancelled. Wrinkl may, in principle, assert the same patents against different defendants in separate proceedings, subject to any additional grounds addressed in the court's Memorandum Opinion.
The four accused products were Facebook Messenger, Facebook Workplace Chat, the Instagram app, and WhatsApp Messenger — covering Meta's primary consumer messaging, enterprise chat, social, and encrypted messaging platforms respectively.
Wrinkl was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, with attorneys including Frank E. Scherkenbach, Adam J. Kessel, Lawrence K. Kolodney, and others. Meta Platforms, Instagram, and WhatsApp were represented by Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, with attorneys including Karen Jacobs, Jennifer Ying, and Richard G. Frenkel, among others.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.