1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

WAPP TECH LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP and 

WAPP TECH CORP., 

 Plaintiffs, 

§

§

§

§

§ 

v. 

§

§

§ 

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-1137 

JPMORGAN CHASE 

BANK, N.A. 

 Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs WAPP TECH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and WAPP TECH CORP. 

(“WAPP” or “Plaintiffs”) hereby submit this Complaint for patent infringement against 

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Defendant” or “Chase”). 

THE PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff WAPP TECH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is a Delaware limited 

partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and its registered 

agent for service of process in Delaware is Corporations & Companies, Inc. (CorpCo), 910 Foulk 

Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, Delaware 19803. 

2. Plaintiff WAPP TECH CORP. is a body corporate organized and existing under 

the laws of the Province of Alberta, Canada, and its registered agent for service of process in 

Delaware is Corporations & Companies, Inc. (CorpCo), 910 Foulk Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, 

Delaware 19803. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 1
2 

3. On information and belief, Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a federally 

chartered national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States 

having a principal place of business at 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, OH, 43240.1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et 

seq. Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). 

5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, in part, because Defendant has 

minimum contacts within the State of Texas; Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the 

privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas; Defendant regularly conducts business 

within the State of Texas; and Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business 

contacts and other activities in the State of Texas, including on information and belief, by virtue 

of Defendant’s infringement in the State of Texas.2 Further, this Court has general jurisdiction 

over Defendant, in part, due to its continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Texas. 

Further, on information and belief, Defendant is subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, in part, 

because Defendant has committed patent infringement in the State of Texas. Defendant has 

regular and established places of business in this district. Defendant is subject to this Court’s 

specific and general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm 

Statute, due at least to its substantial and pervasive business in this State and judicial district, 

including: (i) at least part of its infringing activities alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or 

1 See https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/charters-and-licensing/financial-institution-lists/national-by-name.pdf 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

2

 For example, Defendant advertises job openings for mobile application software engineers in Plano, TX. See, e.g., 

https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210398636/ 

(accessed December 8, 2023); https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/

requisitions/preview/210464557/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/

CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210260943_300015306973757_ORA_DELETED/ 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 2
3 

soliciting business, engaging in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from 

goods sold and services provided to Texas residents. 

6. On information and belief, Defendant conducts business operations throughout the 

State of Texas, including within the Eastern District of Texas, and commits acts of infringement 

within this District. For example, Defendant maintains a place of business at 8181 

Communications Pkwy., Plano, TX 75024, and advertises job openings for mobile application 

software engineers at that location.3 Defendant also has multiple other locations throughout the 

State of Texas, and within the Eastern District of Texas, including banking facilities located at: 

 161 W. Spring Creek Pkwy., Plano, TX, 75023 

 5020 W. Park Blvd., Plano, TX 75093 

 4001 W. Park Blvd., Plano, TX 75093 

 3041 W. Parker Rd., Plano, TX 75023 

 5900 Preston Rd., Plano, TX 75093 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Development of the Patented Inventions 

7. The inspiration for the patented innovations described herein originates from 

application development work by the named inventor for live sporting events, including the 2006 

FIFA World Cup. Through his development work associated with these international sporting 

events, the named inventor of the patents-in-suit developed and created a first-of-its-kind 

application performance engineering platform. He realized that developing applications to support 

widely viewed global events, such as the World Cup, presented unique challenges for application 

3 See, e.g., https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/

210398636/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/

CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210464557/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/

CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210260943_300015306973757_ORA_DELETED/ 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 3
4 

developers—these applications would be used by millions of users on a wide variety of devices 

having different attributes, and connecting to a wide variety of different networks with 

significantly different performance characteristics. To address these challenges, the named 

inventor invented an application authoring environment especially suited for creating applications 

for mobile devices. The invention enables developers to create the applications and ensure they 

will function correctly on a variety of mobile devices with varying device and network 

performance characteristics by emulating and monitoring specific characteristics of the devices 

and the networks to which they could connect. The named inventor realized that such flexibility 

would be necessary to create mobile applications that would work satisfactorily in the plethora of 

scenarios to which real users would subject them. 

8. The named inventor filed his initial provisional application (No. 60/689,101) on 

June 10, 2005. He subsequently filed non-provisional patent applications claiming multiple 

different aspects of his application authoring platform, including applications which issued as 

U.S. Patent Nos. 8,924,192 (filed on November 9, 2012), 9,298,864 (filed on November 19, 

2013), 9,971,678 (filed on December 23, 2014), 10,353,811 (filed on May 14, 2018), and 

10,691,579 (filed on March 28, 2016). 

9. These patented innovations have become core to modern mobile application 

development and have been cited as prior art against later patent applications from industry 

leaders including Apple, Google, Intel, HPE, and Microsoft. For example, on February 1, 2013, 

the USPTO rejected the claims submitted in an Apple patent application based on Plaintiffs’ 

invention. On October 31, 2012, WIPO rejected the claims submitted in an HPE patent 

application (Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US2012/024087) based on Plaintiffs’ invention 

and awarded the inventor patents with the highest prior art designation. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 4
5 

Authoring Mobile Applications 

10. Mobile applications are now typically created in an authoring environment (also 

called an integrated development environment or “IDE”) tailored to meet challenges specific to 

mobile application development. The two most popular modern authoring environments are 

Apple’s Xcode (used to author mobile applications for iOS devices such as iPhones and iPads) 

and Google’s Android Studio (used to author mobile applications for smart phones and tablets 

running Google’s Android operating system). 

11. Authoring environments include the tools needed to create a mobile application 

and then verify that it will function correctly on a variety of mobile devices and under a variety of 

network conditions. For example, Xcode and Android Studio include (1) an editor window where 

the developer will write the code, (2) a compiler that will transform the code into an application 

that will run on a mobile device, (3) tools to execute the compiled application on a variety of 

mobile devices or emulators so the application’s performance can be verified on the selected 

devices and under a variety of network conditions, and (4) tools to monitor performance of the 

application while it is running. 

Xcode 

12. Apple’s Xcode includes the features noted above, including the editor window 

reproduced below: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 5
6 

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/creating-organizing-and-editing-source-files 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

13. Xcode also includes a compiler that will transform the code into an application that 

will run on a mobile device: 

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/improving-build-efficiency-with-good-codingpractices (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 6
7 

14. Xcode further includes tools to execute the compiled application on a variety of 

mobile devices or emulators so the application’s performance can be verified on the selected 

devices and under a variety of network conditions. Xcode provides the ability to transfer the 

compiled application to a physical device for verification. However, developers are unlikely to 

have access to a physical version of every device on which they wish to verify the mobile 

application. Therefore, Xcode also provides the ability to transfer the compiled application to an 

emulated/simulated device, running on a computer, which emulates characteristics of a physical 

device: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 7
8 

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/running-your-app-in-simulator-or-on-a-device 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

15. Developers can verify the compiled applications under a variety of network 

conditions. Network properties such as bandwidth, packet loss, and latency can be simulated in 

order to verify the applications operate properly under a variety of network conditions to which 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 8
9 

they may be subjected: 

Xcode: Device Conditions 

Xcode: Network Link Conditioner Utility 

16. Xcode also includes tools to monitor the performance of an application while it is 

running. Xcode provides tools to monitor the mobile application, regardless of whether it is 

executing on a physical device or an emulated device. Properties such as network characteristics, 

processor usage, memory usage, and disk usage can be monitored and displayed to enable the 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 9
10 

developer to optimize the performance of the mobile application: 

XCode: Instruments 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 10
11 

Xcode: CPU Report 

17. Xcode can also be used to correspond the utilization of the displayed resources 

with the functions of the application responsible for that utilization, for example by using the 

Time Profiler: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 11
12 

Xcode: Time Profiler 

18. The above features allow a developer to write mobile application code targeting a 

variety of device models and verify its performance in an efficient manner. 

Android Studio 

19. Google’s Android Studio includes the features noted above, including the editor 

window illustrated below: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 12
13 

https://developer.android.com/studio/intro/user-interface (accessed December 8, 2023). 

20. Android Studio also includes a compiler that will transform the code into an 

application that will run on a mobile device: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 13
14 

https://developer.android.com/studio/run/rundebugconfig (accessed December 8, 2023) 

(highlighting added). 

21. Android Studio further includes tools to execute the compiled application on a 

variety of mobile devices or device models (Android Virtual Devices) so that the application’s 

performance can be verified on the selected devices under a variety of network conditions. 

Android Studio provides the ability to transfer the compiled application to a physical device for 

verification. However, developers are unlikely to have access to a physical version of every 

device on which they wish to verify the mobile application. Therefore, Android Studio provides 

the ability to transfer the compiled application to an emulated device running on a computer, 

which emulates the characteristics of a physical device: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 14
15 

https://developer.android.com/studio/run/emulator (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 15
16 

https://developer.android.com/studio/run/device (accessed December 8, 2023). 

22. Developers can verify the compiled applications under a variety of network 

conditions. Network properties such as speed and latency can be simulated in order to better 

verify that the application performs appropriately under a variety of network conditions to which 

it may be subjected: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 16
17 

Android Studio: Android Virtual Device Manager (showing Network Speed options). 

23. Android Studio includes tools (profilers) to monitor performance of the application 

while it is running. The pre-Bumblebee release of Android Studio provides tools to monitor the 

mobile application, regardless of whether it is executing on a physical device or an emulated 

device. Android Studio includes profilers providing such monitoring capabilities: CPU, Memory, 

Network, and Energy: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 17 of 42 PageID #: 17
18 

https://developer.android.com/studio/profile/android-profiler (accessed May 18, 2023). 

24. In the Bumblebee release (and later releases), the Network Profiler functionality 

was moved to the Network Inspector window. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 18 of 42 PageID #: 18
19 

https://developer.android.com/studio/profile/android-profiler (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 19 of 42 PageID #: 19
20 

https://developer.android.com/studio/debug/network-profiler (accessed December 8, 2023). 

25. Android Studio can also be used to correspond the utilization of the displayed 

resources with the functions of the application responsible for the utilization: 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 20 of 42 PageID #: 20
21 

https://developer.android.com/studio/profile/cpu-profiler (accessed December 8, 2023). 

26. The above features allow a developer to write the application code and verify its 

performance in an efficient manner. 

The Prevalence of Mobile Banking Applications 

27. Smartphones and tablets have become ubiquitous and have created demand for 

mobile applications tailored to run on those devices. There are more than 1 billion active iPhone 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 21 of 42 PageID #: 21
22 

users and more than 3 billion active Android users.4 Apple and Google each provide their own 

app store, which enables users to easily find and download mobile applications developed by third 

parties.5 Mobile applications developed on either Xcode (for Apple) or Android Studio (for 

Google) can be submitted to the respective app store if the applications meet certain performance 

criteria.6 In order to develop mobile applications that meet the criteria set out by Apple and 

Google, developers must utilize the authoring tools in Xcode or Android Studio that were first 

pioneered by the named inventor. If the mobile applications do not satisfy certain performance 

and debugging standards, then both Apple and Google will reject the mobile application for 

distribution in their respective app stores. 

28. The availability of mobile applications has had a drastic impact on the banking 

industry. Retail bank branch usage declined by 35% overall from 2015 to 2020, while retail 

banking usage among 18 to 24 year-olds declined by nearly 50%.7 At the same time, the number 

of digital banking interactions increased by 15%.8 The COVID-19 pandemic also increased the 

importance of mobile banking—“[a]ccording to a 2020 Deloitte survey of 2,000 Americans, the 

most important factor influencing a client’s likelihood of switching banks during COVID-19 is a 

poorly designed mobile platform.”9 Overall, more than 90% of banking customers under the age 

of 40 utilize mobile banking.10 Mobile banking app features are regarded as one of the “key 

4

 https://www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-statistics/ (accessed December 8, 2023); 

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/android-statistics/ (accessed December 8, 2023). 

5

 https://www.apple.com/app-store/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://play.google.com/store/apps/ (accessed 

December 8, 2023). 

6

 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ (accessed December 8, 2023); 

https://play.google.com/console/about/guides/releasewithconfidence/ (accessed December 8, 2023). 

7

 https://deloitte.wsj.com/articles/how-banks-can-redefine-the-digital-experience-01628093439 (accessed December 

8, 2023). 

8

Id. 

9

Id. 

10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2021/07/29/mobile-banking-adoption-has-skyrocketed-but-so-havefraud-concerns-what-can-banks-do/ (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 22 of 42 PageID #: 22
23 

attractions” for younger customers selecting a new bank.11 Studies indicate that 33% of 

Millennials would consider completely abandoning traditional brick and mortar banking in favor 

of an app.12 With Millennials graduating from college, becoming professionals and already 

making up more than a third of the American labor force,13 the convergence of the above two 

factors will change the core model of banking for generations to come. 

29. Given that mobile applications are now the primary method through which many 

customers interact with their bank, a bank’s mobile application that is known to have “glitches” or 

“bugs” is likely to steer potential customers to other banks with better mobile application 

support.14 Millennials, who make up an ever increasing percentage of all mobile users, are much 

less forgiving concerning their application experience and will unapologetically delete an app just 

because the logo is not appealing.15 Similarly, a mobile banking application that performs slowly 

when trying to complete transactions is likely to steer potential customers away.16 Even mobile 

application characteristics as simple as poor screen readability on a user’s device can drive away 

potential customers.17

30. All of this underscores the need for banks to not only provide mobile applications, 

but to verify that those mobile applications will provide fast, bug-free performance on the wide 

variety of mobile devices used by customers and within a wide variety of environmental (e.g., 

11 https://thefinancialbrand.com/119897/bank-of-america-grabbing-1-in-3-gen-zs-and-millennials-with-mobile/ 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

12 https://www.temenos.com/news/2015/09/29/will-millennials-need-banks-in-the-future/ 

 (accessed December 8, 2023). 

13 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/ (accessed 

December 8, 2023). 

14 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/how-to-choose-mobile-banking-personal-finance-app/ (accessed 

December 8, 2023). 

15 https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/5-Interesting-Facts-About-Millennials-Mobile-App-Usage-from-The2017-US-Mobile-App-Report (accessed December 8, 2023). 

16 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2021/03/29/new-research-identifies-the-most-critical-mobile-bankingfeatures/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://thefinancialbrand.com/108788/mobile-banking-app-customerexperience-user-security-click/ (accessed December 8, 2023). 

17 https://thefinancialbrand.com/108788/mobile-banking-app-customer-experience-user-security-click/ (accessed 

December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 23 of 42 PageID #: 23
24 

network) conditions presented by mobile customers. To accomplish that goal, mobile application 

developers must use specialized authoring tools that accommodate the unique demands presented 

by a wide variety of mobile devices across a vast array of global carriers and networks. 

Patents-in-Suit 

31. Defendant is infringing at least the following patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 

8,924,192; (2) U.S. Patent No. 9,298,864; (3) U.S. Patent No. 9,971,678; (4) U.S. Patent No. 

10,353,811; and (5) U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). 

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

32. On Dec. 30, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly 

and legally issued United States Patent No. 8,924,192 (“the ’192 Patent”) entitled “Systems 

Including Network Simulation for Mobile Application Development and Online Marketplaces for 

Mobile Application Distribution, Revenue Sharing, Content Distribution, or Combinations 

thereof” on an application filed Nov. 9, 2012, United States Patent Application Ser. No. 

13/673,692. The ’192 Patent is a continuation of United States Patent Application Ser. No. 

12/759,543, filed Apr. 13, 2010, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application Ser. 

No. 11/449,958, filed Jun. 9, 2006, and issued as United States Pat. No. 7,813,910, on Oct. 12, 

2012, which application claims priority to United States Patent Application Ser. No. 60/689,101 

filed Jun. 10, 2005. 

33. The ’192 Patent is presumed valid and enforceable. 

34. Plaintiffs are the owners of the ’192 Patent. 

35. The ’192 Patent describes systems that address technical problems related to 

authoring mobile applications and verifying their performance on a variety of devices and 

networks. See, e.g., ’192 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:46-10:29, 14:19-23. 

36. Technological improvements described and claimed in the ’192 Patent were not 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 24 of 42 PageID #: 24
25 

conventional, well-known, or routine at the time of their respective inventions but involved novel 

and non-obvious approaches to problems and shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. See, 

e.g., ’192 Patent at 1:23-2:8. 

37. The written description of the ’192 Patent supports each of the elements of the 

claims, allowing a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to understand what the elements 

cover and how the non-conventional and non-routine combination of claim elements differed 

markedly from and improved upon what may have been considered conventional, generic, or 

routine. See, e.g., ’192 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:46-10:29, 14:19-23. 

38. The ’192 Patent represents a substantial technical improvement in the area of 

authoring mobile applications, as demonstrated by its frequent citation. Plaintiffs’ mobile 

authoring innovations have been cited against a number of industry-leading companies as prior art 

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the World Intellectual Property 

Organization, including citations against Google.18

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

39. On March 29, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 

9,298,864 (the “’864 Patent”) entitled “System Including Network Simulation for Mobile 

Application Development” on an application filed Nov. 19, 2013, United States Patent 

Application Ser. No. 14/084,321. The ’864 Patent is a divisional of United States Application Ser. 

No. 12/705,913, filed Feb. 15, 2010 (now United States Pat. No. 8,589,140), which claims priority 

to United States Application Ser. No. 61/152,934, filed Feb. 16, 2009, and is a continuation-inpart of United States Application Ser. No. 11/449,958, filed Jun. 9, 2006 (now U.S. Pat. No. 

7,813,910), which claims priority to United States Application Ser. No. 60/689,101, filed Jun. 10, 

2005. 

18 See https://patents.google.com/patent/US8924192B1/en (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 25 of 42 PageID #: 25
26 

40. The ’864 Patent is presumed valid and enforceable. 

41. Plaintiffs are the owners of the ’864 Patent. 

42. The ’864 Patent describes systems that address technical problems related to 

authoring mobile applications and verifying their performance on a variety of devices and 

networks. See, e.g., ’864 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:23-10:7, 13:66-14:3. 

43. Technological improvements described and claimed in the ’864 Patent were not 

conventional, well-known, or routine at the time of their respective inventions but involved novel 

and non-obvious approaches to problems and shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. See, 

e.g., ’864 Patent at 1:18-2:7. 

44. The written description of the ’864 Patent supports each of the elements of the 

claims, allowing a POSITA to understand what the elements cover and how the non-conventional 

and non-routine combination of claim elements differed markedly from and improved upon what 

may have been considered conventional, generic, or routine. See, e.g., ’864 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:23-

10:7, 13:66-14:3. 

45. The ’864 Patent represents a substantial technical improvement in the area of 

authoring mobile applications, as demonstrated by its frequent citation. Plaintiffs’ mobile 

authoring innovations have been cited against a number of industry-leading companies as prior art 

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the World Intellectual Property 

Organization.19 

U.S. Patent No. 9,971,678 

46. On May 15, 2018, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 

9,971,678 (the “’678 Patent”) entitled “Systems Including Device and Network Simulation for 

Mobile Application Development” on an application filed Dec. 23, 2014, United States Patent 

19 See https://patents.google.com/patent/US9298864B2/en (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 26 of 42 PageID #: 26
27 

Application Ser. No. 14/581,475. The ’678 Patent is a continuation of United States Patent 

Application Ser. No. 13/673,692, filed Nov. 9, 2012 and issued as United States Pat. No. 

8,924,192, on Dec. 30, 2014, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application Ser. No. 

12/759,543, filed April 13, 2010 and issued as United States Pat. No. 8,332,203, on Dec. 11, 

2012, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application Ser. No. 11/449,958, filed Jun. 

9, 2006 and issued as United States Pat. No. 7,813,910, on Oct. 12, 2010, which application 

claims priority to United States Patent Application Ser. No. 60/689,101 filed Jun. 10, 2005. 

47. The ’678 Patent is presumed valid and enforceable. 

48. Plaintiffs are the owners of the ’678 Patent. 

49. The ’678 Patent describes systems that address technical problems related to 

authoring mobile applications and verifying their performance on a variety of devices and 

networks. See, e.g., ’678 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:64-10:48, 14:4-9, 14:48-52. 

50. Technological improvements described and claimed in the ’678 Patent were not 

conventional, well-known, or routine at the time of their respective inventions but involved novel 

and non-obvious approaches to problems and shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. See, 

e.g., ’678 Patent at 1:22-2:9. 

51. The written description of the ’678 Patent supports each of the elements of the 

claims, allowing a POSITA to understand what the elements cover and how the non-conventional 

and non-routine combination of claim elements differed markedly from and improved upon what 

may have been considered conventional, generic, or routine. See, e.g., ’678 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:64-

10:48, 14:4-9, 14:48-52. 

52. The ’678 Patent represents a substantial technical improvement in the area of 

authoring mobile applications, as demonstrated by its frequent citation. Plaintiffs’ mobile 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 27 of 42 PageID #: 27
28 

authoring innovations have been cited against a number of industry-leading companies as prior art 

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the World Intellectual Property 

Organization, including citations against Amazon.20 

U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 

53. On July 16, 2019, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 

10,353,811 (“the ’811 Patent”) entitled “SYSTEM FOR DEVELOPING AND TESTING A 

MOBILE APPLICATION” on an application filed May 14, 2018, United States Patent 

Application Ser. No. 15/979,330. The ’811 Patent is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. 

No. 14/581,475, filed Dec. 23, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 

13/673,692, filed Nov. 9, 2012, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,924,192, on Dec. 30, 2014, which is 

a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/759,543, filed Apr. 13, 2010, and issued as 

U.S. Pat. No. 8,332,203, on Dec. 11, 2012, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. 

No. 11/449,958, filed Jun. 9, 2006, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,813,910, on Oct. 12, 2010, 

which application claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 60/689,101 filed Jun. 10, 2005. 

54. The ’811 Patent is presumed valid and enforceable. 

55. Plaintiffs are the owners of the ’811 Patent. 

56. The ’811 Patent describes systems that address technical problems related to 

authoring mobile applications and verifying their performance on a variety of devices and 

networks. See, e.g., ’811 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:63-10:48, 14:4-9, 14:48-52. 

57. Technological improvements described and claimed in the ’811 Patent were not 

conventional, well-known, or routine at the time of their respective inventions but involved novel 

and non-obvious approaches to problems and shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. See, 

e.g., ’811 Patent at 1:23-2:11. 

20 See https://patents.google.com/patent/US9971678/en (accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 28 of 42 PageID #: 28
29 

58. The written description of the ’811 Patent supports each of the elements of the 

claims, allowing a POSITA to understand what the elements cover and how the non-conventional 

and non-routine combination of claim elements differed markedly from and improved upon what 

may have been considered conventional, generic, or routine. See, e.g., ’811 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:63-

10:48, 14:4-9, 14:48-52. 

U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 

59. On June 23, 2020, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 

10,691,579 (“the ’579 Patent”) entitled “SYSTEMS INCLUDING DEVICE AND NETWORK 

SIMULATION FOR MOBILE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT” on an application filed 

March 28, 2016, United States Patent Application Ser. No. 15/083,186. The ’579 Patent is a 

division of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/084,321, filed Nov. 19, 2013 (now U.S. Pat. No. 

9,298,864), which claims priority to U.S. application Ser. No. 12/705,913, filed Feb. 15, 2010 

(now U.S. Pat. No. 8,589,140), which claims priority to U.S. Application No. 61/152,934, filed 

Feb. 16, 2009, and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/449,958, filed Jun. 9, 

2006 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,813,910), which claims priority to U.S. Application No. 60/689,101, 

filed Jun. 10, 2005. 

60. The ’579 Patent is presumed valid and enforceable. 

61. Plaintiffs are the owners of the ’579 Patent. 

62. The ’579 Patent describes systems that address technical problems related to 

authoring mobile applications and verifying their performance on a variety of devices and 

networks. See, e.g., ’579 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:42-10:26, 13:48-53, 14:25-29. 

63. Technological improvements described and claimed in the ’579 Patent were not 

conventional, well-known, or routine at the time of their respective inventions but involved novel 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 29 of 42 PageID #: 29
30 

and non-obvious approaches to problems and shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. See, 

e.g., ’579 Patent at 1:20-2:11. 

64. The written description of the ’579 Patent supports each of the elements of the 

claims, allowing a POSITA to understand what the elements cover and how the non-conventional 

and non-routine combination of claim elements differed markedly from and improved upon what 

may have been considered conventional, generic, or routine. See, e.g., ’579 Patent at Fig. 7, 9:42-

10:26, 13:48-53, 14:25-29. 

Infringement by Defendant 

65. Defendant’s most recent quarterly earnings filing noted that it had more than 53 

million active mobile users.21 Defendant gained more than 4 million mobile users year over year, 

an increase of 9% which Defendant showcased in its “Business segment highlights.”22 With the 

massive existing base of mobile users and the continuing shift to mobile banking noted by 

Defendant, it is vital that Defendant’s mobile banking applications be available for the most 

popular mobile devices (such as those running Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating 

system). 

66. Accordingly, Defendant has created its own mobile banking applications and made 

them available in both Apple’s and Google’s App stores: 

21 JP Morgan Chase & Co. Quarterly Report for the Period Ended September 30, 2023, available at 

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/investor-relations/documents/quarterlyearnings/2023/3rd-quarter/CORP-Q3-2023.pdf at 28 (accessed December 8, 2023). 

22 Id. at 7. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 30 of 42 PageID #: 30
31 

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/chase-mobile-bank-invest/id298867247 (accessed December 8, 

2023). 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chase.sig.android&hl=en_US&gl=US 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

67. On information and belief, Defendant uses Apple’s Xcode on an ongoing basis to 

author its mobile application for Apple’s App Store. On information and belief, Defendant uses 

Google’s Android Studio on an ongoing basis to author its mobile application for Google’s App 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 31 of 42 PageID #: 31
32 

Store. Defendant uses both Xcode and Android Studio in a manner that infringes the Patents-inSuit when it uses them to author mobile applications to support its banking services. In addition, 

on information and belief, Defendant uses other software tools to develop its mobile applications, 

and on information and belief, Defendant potentially uses those other tools in an infringing 

manner. 

68. Defendant’s use of Xcode and Android Studio in an infringing manner is necessary 

to meet the performance and functionality guidelines identified by Apple and Google for 

admission to their respective app stores.23 Defendant’s infringing use of Xcode and Android 

Studio is necessary to provide Defendant’s large mobile banking demographic with a satisfactory 

mobile application. 

69. Defendant employs engineers and computer scientists who author and verify 

performance of mobile applications for it on an ongoing basis.24

70. These positions seek mobile developers who are “focused on developing and 

delivering cutting edged mobile applications, digital experiences and next generation banking 

technology solutions to better serve our clients and customers.”25

71. Some of Defendant’s job postings also identify the ability to use Xcode and 

Android Studio as a qualification: 

23 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ (accessed December 8, 2023); 

https://play.google.com/console/about/guides/releasewithconfidence/ (accessed December 8, 2023). 

24 See, e.g., https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/

210398636/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/

CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210464557/ (accessed December 8, 2023); https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/

CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210260943_300015306973757_ORA_DELETED/ 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

25https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/preview/210398636/ 

(accessed December 8, 2023). 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 32 of 42 PageID #: 32
33 

https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1002/requisitions/previ

ew/210464557 (accessed December 8, 2023) (highlighting added). 

72. Defendant has continuously used Xcode and Android Studio in an infringing 

manner to create its mobile applications. 

COUNT I 

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

73. Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above herein by reference. 

74. Defendant without authorization has been and is directly infringing at least Claim 

1 of the ’192 Patent. Defendant infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’192 Patent when its employees 

or agents use Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio (and potentially other software 

development tools) to author mobile applications. 

75. In addition to direct infringement, Defendant also indirectly infringes the ’192 

Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced third parties to author mobile 

applications on its behalf using Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio. Defendant knowingly 

encourages and intends to induce infringement of the ’192 Patent by instructing third parties to 

author applications compatible with Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating systems on 

Defendant’s behalf, knowing and specifically intending that Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android 

Studio will be used in an infringing manner to author the mobile applications. 

76. Defendant will continue to infringe unless this Court enjoins Defendant and its 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 33 of 42 PageID #: 33
34 

agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert with 

Defendant from infringing the ’192 Patent. 

77. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant was aware of the 

infringement allegations regarding the ’192 Patent contained herein. 

78. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant has knowingly engaged in 

the willful destruction of WAPP’s business as a whole, caused the loss of goodwill related to 

WAPP’s business, diminished the viability of WAPP’s business as a whole, and Defendant’s 

actions have had an injurious effect on the property of WAPP, including its intellectual property 

and the ’192 Patent. 

79. Defendant’s infringement of the ’192 Patent, at least since the filing of this 

Complaint, is deliberate and willful. Defendant has had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and their 

infringement at least since the filing of this Complaint. Defendant’s continued infringement is 

deliberate, wanton and egregious, with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights. This is 

therefore an exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. 

80. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’192 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs. 

COUNT II 

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

81. Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above herein by reference. 

82. Defendant without authorization has been and is directly infringing at least Claim 

1 of the ’864 Patent. Defendant infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’864 Patent when its employees 

or agents use Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio (and potentially other software 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 34 of 42 PageID #: 34
35 

development tools) to author mobile applications. 

83. In addition to direct infringement, Defendant also indirectly infringes the ’864 

Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced third parties to author mobile 

applications on its behalf using Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio. Defendant knowingly 

encourages and intends to induce infringement of the ’864 Patent by instructing third parties to 

author applications compatible with Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating systems on 

Defendant’s behalf, knowing and specifically intending that Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android 

Studio will be used in an infringing manner to author the mobile applications. 

84. Defendant will continue to infringe unless this Court enjoins Defendant and its 

agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert with 

Defendant from infringing the ’864 Patent. 

85. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant was aware of the 

infringement allegations regarding the ’864 Patent contained herein. 

86. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant has knowingly engaged in 

the willful destruction of WAPP’s business as a whole, caused the loss of goodwill related to 

WAPP’s business, diminished the viability of WAPP’s business as a whole, and Defendant’s 

actions have had an injurious effect on the property of WAPP, including its intellectual property 

and the ‘864 Patent. 

87. Defendant’s infringement of the ’864 Patent, at least since the filing date of this 

Complaint, is deliberate and willful. Defendant has had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and their 

infringement at least since the filing of this Complaint. Defendant’s continued infringement is 

deliberate, wanton and egregious, with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights. This is 

therefore an exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 35 of 42 PageID #: 35
36 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. 

88. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’864 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs. 

COUNT III 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,971,678 

89. Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above herein by reference. 

90. Defendant without authorization has been and is directly infringing at least Claim 

45 of the ’678 Patent. Defendant infringes at least Claim 45 of the ’678 Patent when its employees 

or agents use Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio (and potentially other software 

development tools) to author mobile applications. 

91. In addition to direct infringement, Defendant also indirectly infringes the ’678 

Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced third parties to author mobile 

applications on its behalf using Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio. Defendant knowingly 

encourages and intends to induce infringement of the ’678 Patent by instructing third parties to 

author applications compatible with Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating systems on 

Defendant’s behalf, knowing and specifically intending that Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android 

Studio will be used in an infringing manner to author the mobile applications. 

92. Defendant will continue to infringe unless this Court enjoins Defendant and its 

agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert with 

Defendant from infringing the ’678 Patent. 

93. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant was aware of the 

infringement allegations regarding the ’678 Patent contained herein. 

94. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant has knowingly engaged in 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 36 of 42 PageID #: 36
37 

the willful destruction of WAPP’s business as a whole, caused the loss of goodwill related to 

WAPP’s business, diminished the viability of WAPP’s business as a whole, and Defendant’s 

actions have had an injurious effect on the property of WAPP, including its intellectual property 

and the ‘678 Patent. 

95. Defendant’s infringement of the ’678 Patent, at least since the filing date of this 

Complaint, is deliberate and willful. Defendant has had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and their 

infringement at least since the filing of this Complaint. Defendant’s continued infringement is 

deliberate, wanton and egregious, with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights. This is 

therefore an exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. 

96. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’678 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs. 

COUNT IV 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,353,811 

97. Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above herein by reference. 

98. Defendant without authorization has been and is directly infringing at least Claim 

1 of the ’811 Patent. Defendant infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’811 Patent when its employees 

or agents use Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio (and potentially other software 

development tools) to author mobile applications. 

99. In addition to direct infringement, Defendant also indirectly infringes the ’811 

Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced third parties to author mobile 

applications on its behalf using Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio. Defendant knowingly 

encourages and intends to induce infringement of the ’811 Patent by instructing third parties to 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 37 of 42 PageID #: 37
38 

author applications compatible with Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating systems on 

Defendant’s behalf, knowing and specifically intending that Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android 

Studio will be used in an infringing manner to author the mobile applications. 

100. Defendant will continue to infringe unless this Court enjoins Defendant and its 

agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert with 

Defendant from infringing the ’811 Patent. 

101. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant was aware of the 

infringement allegations regarding the ’811 Patent contained herein. 

102. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant has knowingly engaged in 

the willful destruction of WAPP’s business as a whole, caused the loss of goodwill related to 

WAPP’s business, diminished the viability of WAPP’s business as a whole, and Defendant’s 

actions have had an injurious effect on the property of WAPP, including its intellectual property 

and the ‘811 Patent. 

103. Defendant’s infringement of the ’811 Patent, at least since the filing date of this 

Complaint, is deliberate and willful. Defendant has had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and their 

infringement at least since the filing of this Complaint. Defendant’s continued infringement is 

deliberate, wanton and egregious, with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights. This is 

therefore an exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. 

104. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’811 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 38 of 42 PageID #: 38
39 

COUNT V 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,691,579 

105. Plaintiffs incorporate the paragraphs above herein by reference. 

106. Defendant without authorization has been and is directly infringing at least Claim 

15 of the ’579 Patent. Defendant infringes at least Claim 15 of the ’579 Patent when its employees 

or agents use Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio (and potentially other software 

development tools) to author mobile applications. 

107. In addition to direct infringement, Defendant also indirectly infringes the ’579 

Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has induced third parties to author mobile 

applications on its behalf using Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android Studio. Defendant knowingly 

encourages and intends to induce infringement of the ’579 Patent by instructing third parties to 

author applications compatible with Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating systems on 

Defendant’s behalf, knowing and specifically intending that Apple’s Xcode or Google’s Android 

Studio will be used in an infringing manner to author the mobile applications. 

108. Defendant will continue to infringe unless this Court enjoins Defendant and its 

agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all others acting in active concert with 

Defendant from infringing the ’579 Patent. 

109. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant was aware of the 

infringement allegations regarding the ’579 Patent contained herein. 

110. At least by the filing date of this Complaint, Defendant has knowingly engaged in 

the willful destruction of WAPP’s business as a whole, caused the loss of goodwill related to 

WAPP’s business, diminished the viability of WAPP’s business as a whole, and Defendant’s 

actions have had an injurious effect on the property of WAPP, including its intellectual property 

and the ‘579 Patent. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 39 of 42 PageID #: 39
40 

111. Defendant’s infringement of the ’579 Patent, at least since the filing date of this 

Complaint, is deliberate and willful. Defendant has had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and their 

infringement at least since the filing of this Complaint. Defendant’s continued infringement is 

deliberate, wanton and egregious, with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ patent rights. This is 

therefore an exceptional case warranting an award of enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285. 

112. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’579 Patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, WAPP prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 

113. A judgment in favor of WAPP that Defendant has infringed and is infringing, 

either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Patents-in-Suit; 

114. A judgment in favor of WAPP that Defendant’s infringement has been and 

continues to be willful; 

115. An Order permanently enjoining Defendant, its respective officers, agents, 

employees, and those acting in privity with them, from further infringement of the Patents-in-Suit; 

116. An award of damages to WAPP arising out of Defendant’s infringement of the 

Patents-in-Suit, including supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up 

until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and enhanced damages pursuant 

to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount 

according to proof; 

117. An award of an ongoing royalty for Defendant’s post-judgment infringement in an 

amount according to proof in the event that a permanent injunction preventing future acts of 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 40 of 42 PageID #: 40
41 

infringement is not granted; 

118. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted 

by law; and 

119. Granting WAPP its costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

120. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), WAPP hereby demands a trial 

by jury on all issues triable by jury. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 41 of 42 PageID #: 41
42 

Dated: December 22, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Leslie V. Payne 

Leslie V. Payne 

State Bar No. 0784736 

lpayne@hpcllp.com 

R. Allan Bullwinkel 

State Bar No. 24064327 

abullwinkel@hpcllp.com 

Alden G. Harris 

State Bar No. 24083138 

aharris@hpcllp.com 

Christopher L. Limbacher 

State Bar No. 24102097 

climbacher@hpcllp.com 

HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 

609 Main Street, Suite 3200 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 221-2000 

Facsimile: (713) 221-2021 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS WAPP 

TECH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND WAPP 

TECH CORP. 

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 42 of 42 PageID #: 42