DCT
1:25-cv-00799
WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Tracki Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Tracki Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00799, D. Del., 06/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPS tracking products and services infringe a patent related to methods and systems for remotely controlling movable entities based on their position relative to pre-defined geographical zones.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns geofencing, where a device attached to an entity (e.g., a vehicle) can autonomously trigger pre-configured actions when it enters or leaves a specific geographic area.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff argues these licenses did not require patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they did not involve an admission of infringement or grant rights to produce a patented article. The resolution of this issue may impact the scope of recoverable damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-05 | '982 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 Issues |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 - "Method and System to Control Movable Entities"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982, titled "Method and System to Control Movable Entities", issued January 29, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that existing GPS vehicle tracking systems were often "limited to relaying the GPS information to a control center or a web server and plotting the position of the vehicle on a computer map," which failed to maximize the potential for enhanced safety and operational control (’982 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a transponder attached to a movable entity can be loaded with coordinates that define a "geographical zone" ('982 Patent, Abstract). This zone is stored in the transponder's memory as an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" (’982 Patent, col. 2:60-65). A microprocessor within the transponder is programmed to autonomously detect an "event"—such as the entity entering or leaving the zone—and execute a "configurable operation" in response, such as turning off the vehicle's ignition or locking its doors (’982 Patent, col. 2:1-5, col. 4:50-58).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables decentralized, automated control actions based on an entity's location, allowing for more sophisticated and immediate responses than systems that rely exclusively on continuous communication with a central server for decision-making (’982 Patent, col. 7:1-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-61 (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- 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’s assertion of claims 1-61 reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims that add further limitations.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Defendant’s products and services, citing by way of example its commercial website (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers a system with methods and user interface for controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that Defendant’s products and services are used for this purpose and that Defendant provides instructions to customers on how to "control an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶19). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
'982 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates; | The complaint alleges Defendant operates a system for "controlling an entity having an attached transponder," which suggests that data, such as coordinates for a geographical zone, is loaded onto the transponder. | ¶18 | col. 28:29-31 |
| 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... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It does not allege facts regarding the use of a "pixilated image" to define a zone. | ¶18 | col. 28:32-39 |
| 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; | The allegation that Defendant's system is for "controlling an entity" implies that it determines the occurrence of events related to the entity's location. | ¶18 | col. 28:40-44 |
| and configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs. | The allegation of "controlling an entity" implies that the system is configured to execute operations based on detected events. | ¶18 | col. 28:45-47 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A principal issue for the court may be whether the accused Tracki system defines a "geographical zone" by "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image," as specifically required by the claim. The complaint provides no facts to support this allegation, raising the question of whether Defendant's technology uses a different, potentially non-infringing method (e.g., vector-based calculations).
- Architectural Question: Claim 1 requires "programming a microprocessor of the transponder" to both define the zone and determine events. This language suggests these functions are performed locally on the device itself. A key question will be whether the accused system performs these functions on the device's microprocessor or on a remote server, which could create a mismatch with the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term:
"pixilated image"Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the claimed "geographical zone." Infringement may depend on whether Defendant's method for creating geofences is found to meet this specific technical limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because if Defendant's devices define zones using a different data structure (e.g., a set of mathematical vectors or waypoint radii), it could form the basis of a non-infringement defense.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any digital representation of a zone that is ultimately rendered on a pixel-based display (like a computer or phone screen) is inherently related to a "pixilated image," even if the underlying data is not stored in a raster format on the transponder.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a specific implementation where a zone is created by drawing a "square around the entire area," dividing it into an "80/80-pixel map," and then activating pixels to form the outline (’982 Patent, col. 16:36-43, Fig. 5A). This could support a narrower construction limited to a bitmap or raster-based data structure stored in the transponder’s memory.
The Term:
"programming a microprocessor of the transponder"Context and Importance: This phrase, recited twice in claim 1, appears to dictate the location where the core logic of the invention is executed. The resolution of this term's meaning will be critical in determining whether systems that perform zone-definition and event-detection on a remote server, rather than on the end-user device, fall within the scope of the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "programming" simply means loading configuration data (like coordinates) that the microprocessor uses with its existing, fixed firmware, rather than altering its executable code (’982 Patent, col. 28:32-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of over-the-air updates changing "parameters used for processing physical and logical events on the fly" could support a construction requiring more than just loading data points, suggesting an active configuration of the microprocessor's operational logic (’982 Patent, col. 12:7-10).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It claims inducement is based on Defendant actively encouraging infringement through materials like "product instruction manuals" (Compl. ¶¶20, 21). It supports contributory infringement by alleging that the "only reasonable use" for the accused products is an infringing one and that they are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’982 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" as a basis for ongoing willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶20, 21). The prayer for relief also requests treble damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 8, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Tracki system's method of defining geofences involve the creation of a "pixilated image" as taught and claimed in the ’982 patent, or does it utilize a fundamentally different, non-infringing data structure? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations makes this a primary question for discovery.
- A second key issue is one of system architecture: Does the accused system perform the claimed "programming" and event-detection logic on the microprocessor within the user's transponder, as the claim language suggests, or are these functions predominantly executed on Defendant’s remote servers?
- A significant procedural question will concern the scope of damages: As a non-practicing entity with a history of prior settlements, Plaintiff's ability to recover pre-suit damages will likely depend on whether its arguments can successfully navigate the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.