WirelessWerx IP LLC v. GPS Insight Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: GPS Insight, Inc. (Arizona)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Andrew M. Ling, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03749, D. Ariz., 10/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Arizona because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet management products and services infringe a patent related to methods for wirelessly controlling movable entities by defining and monitoring their position relative to geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the vehicle telematics and geofencing domain, where GPS data is used to trigger automated actions when a vehicle enters or exits a predefined virtual boundary.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities concerning its patents. Plaintiff also identifies itself as a non-practicing entity.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 - Method and System to Control Movable Entities

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior GPS vehicle tracking systems were primarily limited to relaying location information to a control center for plotting on a map, lacking more sophisticated, device-level control functionality based on an entity's geographic position (’982 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a "transponder" attached to a movable entity is loaded with data defining a geographical zone. This zone can be defined by waypoints (a coordinate and radius) or by creating an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" using a plurality of coordinates (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-65). A microprocessor within the transponder is programmed to monitor the entity's status (e.g., position) relative to this zone and, upon detecting a defined event like entering or exiting the zone, execute a pre-configured operation, such as locking a door or turning off an ignition (’982 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled automated, on-device logic for location-based control, allowing for real-time actions without requiring constant communication with a remote server, thereby improving responsiveness and efficiency (’982 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’982 Patent, including at least exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A method to wirelessly control an entity having an attached transponder, comprising:
  • loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates;
  • programming a microprocessor of the transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates, wherein said enclosed area is representative of a geographical zone;
  • programming the microprocessor in the transponder to determine the occurrence of an event associated with a status of the entity in relation to the geographical zone; and
  • configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22, ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Defendant's Accused Products," which it describes as "systems, products, and services in the field of wireless control" offered by GPS Insight Inc (Compl. ¶17, ¶27). The complaint does not name specific product models but references Defendant's website, gpsinsight.com (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are used for fleet management and vehicle tracking (Compl., p. 2, fn. 1). The alleged functionality involves methods for controlling a movable entity by defining geographical zones and waypoints, which corresponds to the geofencing features common in modern fleet management platforms (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" to describe the infringement of claim 1 but does not attach the exhibit (Compl. ¶22). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making and using products and services that practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶17). The core infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's fleet management systems allow users to define geographical zones (geofences) and configure automated actions for vehicles that cross those boundaries. This functionality is alleged to meet the limitations of claim 1, including loading coordinates to an in-vehicle device (transponder), using a microprocessor on that device to determine when a vehicle's location intersects with the defined zone, and executing a pre-configured operation as a result (Compl. ¶13, ¶17, ¶22).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites "programming a microprocessor...to define a geographical zone." A potential issue is whether a user's action of drawing a geofence on a web interface, which then sends configuration data to a vehicle's telematics unit, constitutes "programming" the microprocessor as the term is used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires defining the zone by "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image." A key technical question will be what data structure the accused devices use to store and process geofence information. The complaint does not provide evidence to show that the accused system uses a pixel-map representation on the device itself, as opposed to an alternative format like a vector-based polygon.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "programming a microprocessor of the transponder to define a geographical zone"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The dispute may turn on whether sending configuration data to a device qualifies as "programming" it. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that this language requires a more direct, firmware-level modification of the microprocessor’s instructions, whereas Plaintiff may argue that it covers any act of loading data that causes the microprocessor to perform the claimed function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "loading" a plurality of coordinates to the transponder's memory, which the microprocessor then uses to determine the entity's status relative to the zone (’982 Patent, col. 2:60-65). This could support an interpretation where providing the necessary data for the microprocessor to perform its function is sufficient to meet the "programming" limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim preamble separates the step of "loading...coordinates" from the step of "programming a microprocessor." A court could see this as evidence that "programming" is a distinct, more active step. The patent also depicts a "Configuration Utility" software tool, which might suggest a more formal configuration process is what the patentee meant by "programming" (’982 Patent, Figs. 4A-4G).

• The Term: "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image"

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case may depend on the construction of this term, as it defines the required technical format for the geographical zone. If the accused products define zones using a different data structure (e.g., a list of polygon vertices), they may not infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any digital representation of a geographical area that is ultimately rendered on a screen is conceptually a "pixilated image," and the term should not be limited to a specific file format. The overall purpose is to create a boundary for comparison against GPS coordinates (’982 Patent, col. 15:15-30).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of creating a zone by first drawing a square around it and then dividing that square into an "80/80-pixel map," where pixels are activated to form the zone's outline (’982 Patent, col. 16:35-42; Fig. 5A). This specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to this type of bitmapped data structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant actively encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its products in a way that infringes (Compl. ¶23). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and their only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the ’982 Patent and the alleged infringement "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶23, ¶24). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge but reserves the right to amend if discovery reveals such knowledge (Compl., p. 6, fns. 3-4). Plaintiff seeks treble damages for any post-suit infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶6).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused system's method for defining and storing geofences on its in-vehicle hardware involve "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image" as required by Claim 1 and detailed in the patent’s specification, or does it employ a fundamentally different data structure (e.g., vector-based polygons) that falls outside the claim's literal scope?
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the act of sending configuration parameters from a server to a device's memory for its processor to use be construed as "programming a microprocessor," or does this claim language require a more direct manipulation of the processor's executable instructions, potentially limiting the claim's reach to initial device setup or firmware updates?