IOENGINE Sues Apple Over Tunneling Portable-Device Patents.

The complaint

IOENGINE, LLC filed IOENGINE, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00440, in the Midland-Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas on October 30, 2026. The docket assigns the case to Judge David Counts. IOENGINE demands a jury.

The complaint describes IOENGINE as a Delaware limited liability company based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that owns the five patents, and Apple as a California corporation based in Cupertino, California, that designs, makes, uses, imports, offers for sale, and sells the accused products. It alleges that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b) because Apple has committed acts of infringement in the district and has regular and established places of business there.

The patents and asserted claims

The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 9,059,969; 10,397,374; 10,447,819; 10,972,584; and 10,992,786. Each is titled Apparatus, Method and System for a Tunneling Client Access Point, and the complaint says each claims priority to an application filed March 23, 2004. Asserted claims: claims 4 and 10 of the '969 patent; claims 1 and 3 of the '374 patent; claim 184 of the '819 patent; claim 1 of the '584 patent; and claims 1 and 20 of the '786 patent.

U.S. Patent 9,059,969 covers a portable device that talks to a terminal whose program code presents an interactive user interface and provides a communications node so the portable device can reach a network node through the terminal. Claim 1 covers that portable device with an external communication interface, a processor, and memory storing program code that provides a communications node on the portable device that coordinates with the terminal's communications node to reach a communications network node through the terminal's network interface, and program code that runs in response to user interaction with the interactive user interface on the terminal. Claim 2 covers claim 1 where portable-device program code causes a communication to the network node. Claim 4 covers claim 2 where that communication facilitates encrypted communications from the network node to the terminal. Claim 10 covers claim 2 where the network node has a database and the communication facilitates synchronizing portable-device content with that database.

U.S. Patent 10,397,374 covers a portable device configured to communicate with a network that includes a network node and a terminal with a graphical interface for controlling the portable device. Claim 1 covers that portable device with interfaces and program code that respond to terminal-driven commands and communicate with the terminal and network node. Claim 3 covers claim 1 where portable-device program code causes a secure communication through the terminal network interface to the network node.

U.S. Patent 10,447,819 covers a portable device that communicates with a network node and with a terminal that presents an interactive interface for controlling the portable device. Claim 184 covers that portable device with a network interface for content from the network node, a communications interface that sends a data-content stream to the terminal, a processor, and memory program code for those communications.

U.S. Patent 10,972,584 covers a portable device that communicates with multiple network nodes and with a terminal whose program code facilitates a key exchange with the portable device. Claim 1 covers that portable device with network and terminal interfaces, a processor, and memory program code tied to the key-exchange and communication path.

U.S. Patent 10,992,786 covers a portable device that communicates with a terminal whose interface receives user commands and with a communications network. Claim 1 covers that portable device with interfaces, a processor, and memory program code responding to terminal-driven commands. Claim 20 covers claim 1 where the terminal has a network interface and the portable device transmits a communication through that interface to a network node.

The accused products

The complaint defines four accused categories. Smartwatch Accused Products include the Apple Watch Series, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Ultra lines, with a paired iPhone running the Watch application pleaded as the terminal. Earbud Accused Products include AirPods, AirPods Pro, and AirPods Max, with a paired iPhone as the terminal. Smartphone Accused Products include iPhone models compatible with Apple CarPlay, with a CarPlay vehicle display pleaded as the terminal. Streaming Device Accused Products include Apple TV HD and Apple TV 4K lines, with a television or other display pleaded as the terminal.

The infringement allegations

Each of the five counts alleges, on information and belief, that Apple has infringed one of the patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products that practiced the asserted claims during what the complaint calls the infringing time period. On marking, the complaint alleges that IOENGINE has granted a single license, in May 2018, that requires marking, and, on information and belief, that the licensee has marked its products with the '969 patent since then. It alleges constructive notice of the '969 patent under 35 U.S.C. 287(a) and seeks damages for infringement occurring up to six years before filing, under 35 U.S.C. 286. The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284, interest, and a declaration that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285.

Related proceedings on the same family

Public decisions bear on claims in the same family. In a May 3, 2024 decision, 100 F.4th 1395, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's ruling in an inter partes review that claims 1 and 2 of the '969 patent, among others, are unpatentable, and reversed the Board on claims 4 and 7; claim 10 was not among the claims the Board held unpatentable. In a May 7, 2025 decision, 136 F.4th 1354, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Delaware jury verdict that claim 3 of the '969 patent is invalid as anticipated and obvious over a prior-art USB storage device and its upgrade software. Claims 3, 4, and 10 of the '969 patent each depend from claim 2.

In an earlier Western District of Texas case on the '819 and '584 patents, No. 6:21-cv-01296, a jury found on April 19, 2024 that the defendant had not infringed claims 187 and 192 of the '819 patent or the asserted claims of the '584 patent, and the court entered final judgment for the defendant on May 20, 2024. In a July 27, 2026 notice in that case, IOENGINE reported on ex parte reexaminations of both patents: that on March 3, 2026, the examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1 through 99 of the '584 patent and issued a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate, and that on July 22, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed the examiner's rejection of claims 184 through 192 of the '819 patent. Claim 184 of the '819 patent and claim 1 of the '584 patent are among the claims asserted against Apple. On July 28, 2026, the court in that case denied IOENGINE's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, in an order filed under seal (ECF No. 400), and a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed on August 25, 2026 (ECF No. 404).

What to watch next

Watch for Apple's answer or a motion under Rule 12, a scheduling order, and claim construction on portable device, terminal, and communications network node across the four accused pairings. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.