WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Pointr USA Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Pointr USA Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Consumer Rights Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10391, D. Mass., 02/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the District of Massachusetts and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for indoor mapping and control infringe a patent related to methods for wirelessly controlling movable entities within defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to GPS-based tracking and remote management systems, which allow for monitoring and controlling assets like vehicles by defining virtual boundaries (geofences) and triggering actions based on an asset's location relative to those boundaries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior matters, but alleges that none of those licenses involved an admission of infringement or the production of a patented article, which may be relevant to potential damages and marking defenses.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-11-05	'982 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/625,467)
2008-01-29	U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 Issues
2025-02-15	Complaint Filed

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

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

• U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982, "Method and System to Control Movable Entities," issued January 29, 2008
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of contemporary GPS tracking systems, which were often restricted to simply relaying an entity's position to a control center, lacking the ability to actively and remotely control the entity's functions based on its location (’982 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a transponder attached to a "movable entity" (e.g., a vehicle) is loaded with coordinates defining a "geographical zone" (e.g., a geofence). A microprocessor in the transponder is programmed to determine when an event occurs—such as the entity entering or leaving the zone—and then automatically execute a pre-configured operation, such as locking a door or turning off the ignition (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-6). The system allows for creating these zones from waypoints (points with a radius) or by defining irregular shapes on a pixilated map (’982 Patent, col. 14:55-61; col. 15:7-14).
    • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from passive tracking to active, location-based remote management, enabling automated control over assets without direct, real-time human intervention (’982 Patent, col. 7:19-44).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts claims 1-16, with an emphasis on claim 1 (Compl. ¶16, ¶21).
    • Independent Claim 1 of the ’982 Patent includes the following essential elements:
      • A method to wirelessly control an entity having an attached transponder.
      • Loading a plurality of coordinates from a computing device to the transponder's memory.
      • 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.
      • Programming the microprocessor to determine the occurrence of an event associated with the status of the entity in relation to the geographical zone.
      • Configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Defendant's Accused Products" and describes them as "systems, products, and services in the field of indoor mapping and control" (Compl. ¶16, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services" that infringe the ’982 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The functionality is broadly characterized as "indoor mapping and control" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused products operate or identify specific product names.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’982 patent but refers to an external claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶21). The complaint’s narrative text does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory. The core allegation is that Defendant’s "systems, products, and services in the field of indoor mapping and control" practice the patented method (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's focus on "indoor mapping and control" raises the question of whether this technology falls within the scope of the ’982 patent, which describes its invention in the context of outdoor, GPS-based systems for "movable entities" such as vehicles, boats, and aircraft (’982 Patent, col. 2:4-6). A dispute may arise over whether an "indoor" space constitutes a "geographical zone" as contemplated by the patent.
• Technical Questions: A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused "indoor mapping" systems perform the specific steps of the claims. For example, what evidence shows that the accused products are "loading... a plurality of coordinates" and using a microprocessor to create an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" to define a zone, as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the infringement theory, certain terms appear central.

• The Term: "geographical zone"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the "indoor" areas mapped by Defendant's system can be considered "geographical zones." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent repeatedly uses it in the context of outdoor, large-scale areas defined by GPS coordinates, waypoints, and routes (’982 Patent, col. 1:19-25; col. 7:6-13).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly limit "geographical zone" to outdoor or GPS-based areas, which could support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any defined spatial area.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently provides examples related to vehicle tracking, such as tracing "the border of a state line" or "the route of a selected highway" (’982 Patent, col. 8:7-9). The detailed description of zone creation also centers on using waypoints with a radius or pixilated maps derived from geographical coordinates, which may suggest a narrower scope tied to GPS or similar location technologies (’982 Patent, col. 14:55-61; col. 15:7-19).

• The Term: "movable entity"

  • Context and Importance: Infringement requires controlling a "movable entity." The nature of the "entity" controlled by Defendant's "indoor mapping" system is not specified in the complaint, creating a potential point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad. An argument could be made that it covers any object capable of movement that is being tracked, including people or equipment within an indoor space.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides a specific, though not necessarily exhaustive, list: "a vehicle, a vessel, a craft, a boat, a helicopter, or a plane" (’982 Patent, col. 2:4-6). This list, combined with the patent's overall focus on fleet management and vehicle tracking, could be used to argue for a construction limited to vehicles or similar large-scale assets.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendant actively encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶22). The contributory infringement claim alleges that Defendant's products are not staple articles of commerce and that Defendant has reason to know their use would be infringing (Compl. ¶23).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "has known of the ’982 patent and the technology underlying it from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and seeks enhanced damages for post-filing infringement (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge but reserves the right to amend if discovery reveals such knowledge (Compl. ¶22, n.2).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "geographical zone" and "movable entity", which are described in the patent’s specification primarily in the context of outdoor, GPS-based vehicle tracking, be construed to cover the systems for "indoor mapping and control" that are the subject of the infringement allegation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual support: given that the complaint provides a high-level allegation without specific operational details or a supporting claim chart, what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused indoor systems actually perform the specific, multi-step method of claim 1, particularly the programming of a microprocessor to create an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" based on loaded coordinates?
• A third question relates to damages and prior conduct: how will Plaintiff’s status as a non-practicing entity and its history of prior settlement licenses, as noted in the complaint, affect issues of marking, damages, and the overall litigation strategy?