WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Here Technologies

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: HERE Technologies (Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Consumer Rights Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10418, D. Mass., 02/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the District of Massachusetts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mapping and location-based services infringe a patent related to defining and using three-dimensional geographical zones to monitor entities and send targeted messages.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns geofencing and location-based services in three-dimensional spaces, a field of increasing importance for indoor navigation, asset tracking, and context-aware marketing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses related to its patent portfolio. Plaintiff argues that because these licenses did not result in the production of a patented article, the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 are not applicable, which may be a point of dispute regarding the scope of recoverable pre-suit damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-30	U.S. Patent No. 8,428,867 Priority Date
2013-04-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,428,867 Issue Date
2025-02-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,428,867 - Configuring and Using Multi-Dimensional Zones

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8428867, Configuring and Using Multi-Dimensional Zones, issued April 23, 2013 (’867 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies limitations in contemporary GPS tracking systems, particularly their lack of precision for indoor applications where, for example, a device on one floor of a building might appear closer to a location node on a different floor ('867 Patent, col. 1:47-55). This imprecision limits the utility of location-based services in complex, multi-level environments.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for defining three-dimensional geographical zones using "waypoints." Each waypoint is defined by a geographical coordinate (latitude, longitude, and elevation) and a radius ('867 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67). A movable entity with a transponder can determine its position relative to these 3D zones. A central system receives this location data and can, in response, send targeted messages—such as commercial advertisements or emergency alerts—back to the entity based on its specific location in the 3D space ('867 Patent, col. 3:1-28).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable more granular and context-aware services than conventional 2D geofencing, facilitating applications like indoor navigation, targeted advertising in multi-story venues, and precise asset tracking in complex structures ('867 Patent, col. 3:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-21, focusing on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for defining a 3D geographical zone for a movable entity with a transponder linked to the internet and a GPS receiver.
  • Allowing a user to enter a "waypoint" defined by a 3D geographical coordinate (latitude, longitude, elevation) and a radius.
  • Loading the waypoint onto the transponder.
  • A programmed computer receiving, over the internet, location information derived from the transponder's GPS receiver.
  • The computer then using that location information to send a targeted message back to the transponder based on its 3D location.
  • The method further specifies that the transponder is a cell phone or PDA with WiFi and Bluetooth capabilities, and that "commercial communications are performed" where an "advertisement, promotion or suggestion that relates to that specific area of the shopping mall or hotel is downloaded to the transponder for the user."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers generally to Defendant’s "Accused Products" and "systems, products, and services in the field of indoor mapping and control" (Compl. ¶¶16, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe the ’867 Patent but provides no detailed description of their specific functionality or operation (Compl. ¶21). The infringement theory is outlined in a claim chart (Exhibit B) that is referenced but was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶21).
• The complaint positions Defendant as a major entity in the mapping and location data market, noting it is majority-owned by a consortium of German automotive companies and Intel (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B to detail its infringement theory for Claim 1, but this exhibit was not provided with the initial pleading (Compl. ¶21). The narrative allegations suggest that Defendant's "indoor mapping and control" systems and services perform the method steps of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶21). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's technology allows for the definition of geographical zones, monitors the location of user devices relative to those zones, and provides responsive messages or services based on that location data, thereby practicing the patented method.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will concern the final, detailed clauses of Claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant's accused "indoor mapping and control" services perform the specific function of downloading "an advertisement, promotion or suggestion that relates to that specific area of the shopping mall or hotel" as expressly required by the claim language ('867 Patent, col. 42:41-45). A mismatch on this element could present a significant challenge to a literal infringement theory.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system utilizes "waypoints" defined by a "geographical coordinate and a radius," including an "elevation value," as opposed to alternative methods of defining zones, such as polygonal boundaries or signal-strength mapping? The complaint lacks the specificity to answer this.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "waypoint"

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of infringement. The case may turn on whether Defendant's method for defining geographical zones is encompassed by the patent's definition of a "waypoint."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a specific definition, stating a waypoint is "defined by a geographical coordinate and a radius" ('867 Patent, col. 42:14-15). The summary and abstract reinforce this point-and-radius definition ('867 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-64). A party could argue that this explicit definition within the claim itself limits its meaning.
• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also describes a "zone" more broadly as "an irregular region defined by a series of line segments enclosing an area" ('867 Patent, col. 8:58-60). A party might argue that "waypoint" should be construed in the broader context of creating geographical boundaries, not just the specific point-and-radius geometry.

The Term: "commercial communications are performed"

Context and Importance

Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction appears central to the viability of the infringement case. If construed narrowly, it could limit the claim to a specific advertising use case that the accused "indoor mapping and control" services may not perform.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, tying the "commercial communications" to the downloading of an "advertisement, promotion or suggestion" related to a "shopping mall or hotel" ('867 Patent, col. 42:38-45). The specification provides numerous examples of such commercial applications, which could be used to argue the inventors contemplated this narrow scope ('867 Patent, col. 3:1-9; col. 36:56-67).
• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could potentially argue this language is merely illustrative of one possible embodiment. However, the use of "wherein" and the detailed nature of the clause suggest it is a limitation rather than an example.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by instructing customers on how to use its products and services (Compl. ¶22). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶23).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’867 Patent and its infringement "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶22, 23). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness. The complaint explicitly reserves the right to amend its pleading if discovery reveals evidence of pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 6, fns. 2-3).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: Is independent Claim 1 of the ’867 Patent limited by its explicit language to systems that perform a specific commercial advertising function in a retail or hotel setting, or can the claim be interpreted more broadly to cover general-purpose "indoor mapping and control" technologies?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: Assuming a favorable claim construction, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant’s accused systems actually perform each step of the claimed method, particularly the use of 3D, radius-based "waypoints" and the specific server-side logic of responding to location data with targeted messages? The lack of technical detail in the complaint leaves this as a central open question.