Stratopatent Files Parallel East Texas Suits Against Shopify Inc. and Wipro.

Stratopatent LLC filed two same-day patent suits in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on September 9, 2026. STRATOPATENT LLC v. Shopify Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00804, names the Canadian Shopify parent. STRATOPATENT LLC v. Wipro Limited, No. 2:26-cv-00803, names Wipro Limited (India) and Wipro Inc. (Delaware). Both cases are assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. Stratopatent is a Texas LLC based in Austin. Counsel of record is Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.

Shopify Inc.: Canadian platform defendant

The Shopify complaint names Shopify Inc., a Canadian corporation headquartered in Ottawa, as the sole defendant. Stratopatent alleges that Shopify's Terms of Service make U.S. and Canadian merchants contract with Shopify Inc., cites a New York office, and points to Texas merchant activity. Jurisdiction is pleaded under Texas long-arm contacts and, in the alternative, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Venue relies on acts of infringement in the District and on 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) for a foreign defendant that does not reside in the United States, citing In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Five Shopify patents and the liability theory

Shopify is accused under five patents: 10,769,198 (image identification with an image mask and trained neural network); 11,294,952 (image identification with a trained neural network); 11,354,622 (third-party warehouse integration); 10,949,861 (platform feedback data for downstream subsystems); and 11,348,166 (analysis of wearable items for a clothing-subscription platform).

Each patent is a separate count. Every count pleads direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), inducement under 271(b), and contributory infringement under 271(c). Willfulness is pleaded for post-filing enhanced damages under section 284. Stratopatent alleges no section 287 marking product exists. The prayer seeks an infringement judgment, damages not less than a reasonable royalty (including enhanced damages), and exceptional-case fees under section 285. It does not expressly request a permanent injunction.

Accused Shopify features include Shopify Magic and vision-language-model product-image tools; Shopify Fulfillment Network and third-party-logistics functions; returns tools and Admin GraphQL return APIs with Shopify Subscriptions; and related App Store / merchant platform services.

Wipro: India parent, Delaware subsidiary, Fashion Rental Solution

The Wipro complaint names Wipro Limited, an Indian public company based in Bengaluru, and Wipro Inc., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in East Brunswick, New Jersey. Stratopatent alleges Wipro Inc. is a wholly owned U.S. operating arm and alter ego of Wipro Limited, is registered in Texas, and that both defendants use a Texas Technology Center in Plano as a regular and established place of business.

For Wipro Limited, Stratopatent again pleads Texas contacts, Rule 4(k)(2) in the alternative, and foreign-defendant venue under section 1391(c)(3). For Wipro Inc., the venue story is classic section 1400(b): a regular and established place of business in Plano plus alleged acts of infringement in the District.

Six Wipro patents aimed at Fashion Rental Solution

Wipro is accused under six patents: 11,087,392; 11,348,166; 10,902,510; and 12,033,208 (wearable-item analysis for clothing-subscription platforms); 11,354,622 (third-party warehouse integration); and 11,307,149 (inspection and defect detection). The accused product is Wipro's Fashion Rental Solution, marketed as an SAP Business Technology Platform offering for fashion rental and subscription logistics, including warehouse snapshots, order drops, returns entities, QR/article identifiers, and surface inspection / restock workflows.

As with Shopify, each patent is a separate count pleading section 271(a), 271(b), and 271(c), plus willfulness and section 284 enhancement. The prayer again seeks an infringement judgment, royalty-floor damages with enhancement, and section 285 fees, without an express permanent injunction.

How the two suits fit together

This is one campaign with two targets. Shopify is the broad e-commerce platform case. Wipro is the vertical fashion-rental / warehouse-integration case. Patents 11,348,166 and 11,354,622 appear in both complaints, which ties the image-subscription and warehouse theories across defendants. Naming Canadian Shopify Inc. alone leans on foreign-defendant venue. Naming Indian Wipro Limited plus Delaware Wipro Inc. hedges alter-ego and place-of-business issues and keeps a U.S. entity in the case for service, discovery, and collection.

What it means in plain terms

Stratopatent is pressing platform and logistics patents against a major online commerce company and a major IT-services fashion-rental product. Foreign parents are not a jurisdictional dead end here: the complaints use Texas contacts, Rule 4(k)(2), and foreign-defendant venue, and the Wipro case adds a Plano facility for the U.S. subsidiary. Canadian or Indian domicile does not block U.S. patent damages for U.S. making, using, selling, offering, or importing.

Expect early motions on personal jurisdiction and venue, fights over who "uses" the claimed methods (platform provider versus merchants or retailer customers), and section 101 or claim-construction pressure on the AI, subscription, and warehouse claims.

What to watch next

Watch for answers and Rule 12 motions in both cases, especially jurisdiction challenges by Shopify Inc. and Wipro Limited and place-of-business arguments about the Plano center. Also watch whether Stratopatent adds more platform or fashion-logistics defendants on overlapping patents, and whether the damages theory stays royalty-focused.