WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Audi Of America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Audi of America, Inc. (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-11147, E.D. Mich., 04/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's regular and established place of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan, and alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Audi Connect vehicle telematics systems and services infringe a patent related to methods for wirelessly monitoring and controlling movable entities using geofencing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology involves equipping a movable entity, such as a vehicle, with a transponder that can determine its location relative to a predefined geographical zone and execute a pre-programmed action in response to a zone-related event (e.g., entry or exit).
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities. The complaint asserts these licenses did not involve admissions of infringement and were not licenses to produce a patented article, a point relevant to potential defenses regarding patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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's background section notes that existing vehicle tracking systems were often limited to relaying GPS information to a control center for display on a map, and that their full benefits had "yet to be maximized" (’982 Patent, col. 1:48-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a transponder attached to a movable entity is loaded with coordinates that define a "geographical zone." The transponder’s microprocessor is programmed to use this data to create an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" (’982 Patent, col. 2:9-18). The key innovation is that the local microprocessor is programmed to independently determine when an event occurs related to this zone (e.g., the entity entering or leaving it) and then "execute a configurable operation," such as locking a door or turning off the ignition, without needing real-time instruction from a central server (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-47).
• Technical Importance: The described approach allows for more autonomous and sophisticated remote control logic to be executed directly on the tracked entity, moving beyond simple location reporting to active, event-driven control based on geofencing.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-61 of the ’982 Patent (Compl. ¶18). The independent claims appear to be 1, 20, and 43.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites:
  • 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 dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Audi's products and services incorporating "Audi Connect" technology (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). This system is accused of practicing the methods claimed in the ’982 Patent. The complaint provides a link to an Audi webpage describing the features of Audi Connect, implying these features form the basis of the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Audi Connect system infringes claims of the ’982 Patent by providing a system and methods for controlling a vehicle with a transponder (Compl. ¶18). The pleading states that support for these allegations can be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶19). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, and the complaint itself does not contain a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product's features to the patent's claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of specific technical mappings raises the question of whether the functionality of the modern Audi Connect system aligns with the specific implementation described in the patent. A central question may be whether the term "pixilated image," as used in Claim 1 and described in the patent, can be construed to read on the digital mapping and geofencing data structures used in the accused system.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may concern the locus of control. The patent claims programming a microprocessor on the transponder to determine events and execute operations. The infringement analysis will likely require evidence establishing whether the accused system performs this logic locally on the vehicle's telematics unit, as the patent appears to require, or whether the logic is primarily executed on Defendant's remote servers with the vehicle unit acting as a simple terminal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "pixilated image" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 1's method of defining a geographical zone. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused Audi Connect system likely uses modern vector-based or other sophisticated digital map data, and the patentability of the claim may have rested on this specific "pixilated image" implementation. The viability of the infringement claim could depend on whether this term is interpreted narrowly as a literal bitmap or broadly enough to cover other digital representations of a geographic area.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for analysis of arguments for a broader interpretation. The patent specification appears to use the term consistently in a specific manner.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of creating a zone by first drawing a "square around the entire area" and then dividing it into an "80/80-pixel map" (’982 Patent, col. 16:34-40). It further describes testing a position fix by plotting it within this pixel map (’982 Patent, col. 15:53-61). Figure 5A is explicitly titled a "pixel map of a zone," visually reinforcing this specific implementation.

• The Term: "programming a microprocessor of the transponder" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for establishing where the inventive logic is performed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it addresses the core architectural distinction between a system where intelligence is distributed to the endpoint (the vehicle) versus one where it is centralized at the server. Infringement will depend on whether "programming" is construed to mean merely sending configuration parameters to existing software or if it requires loading or modifying executable instructions on the vehicle's hardware.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One might argue that loading coordinates and configuration data, as recited in the claim, constitutes "programming" the microprocessor because it alters its subsequent logical operations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses "Over-the-air operating system updates" using "two executable code spaces," which suggests "programming" may refer to a more fundamental modification of the transponder's software, rather than simply adjusting its operational parameters (’982 Patent, col. 12:8-14).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are not a "staple commercial product" and that their "only reasonable use... is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’982 Patent and its alleged infringement "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21). The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of willfulness should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixilated image," which is described in the 2004-priority patent as a grid-based map, be construed to cover the potentially more advanced digital mapping technologies used in the modern Audi Connect system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural implementation: does the accused Audi Connect system perform the claimed event detection and control logic primarily on the vehicle's local microprocessor, as required by the claims, or is the operational intelligence centralized on Audi's remote servers, creating a potential mismatch with the patent's teachings? The complaint provides no specific facts to resolve this question.