WirelessWerx IP LLC v. OnStar LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: OnStar, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-0104, E.D.N.C., 02/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly having a regular and established place of business in Smithfield, North Carolina, within the district, and having committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle telematics services infringe a patent related to systems for monitoring and controlling movable entities using pre-defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves geo-fencing, where a vehicle's onboard system uses location data to trigger events or actions when crossing a virtual geographic boundary, a foundational concept in modern vehicle telematics and fleet management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses in other matters. It preemptively argues that these prior licenses do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 (“the ’982 Patent”), entitled “Method and System to Control Movable Entities,” issued January 29, 2008.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art GPS tracking systems, which were primarily confined to relaying GPS information to a central location for mapping, without enabling more complex, localized control functions based on geography (Compl. ¶12; ’982 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a transponder attached to a movable entity (e.g., a vehicle) is loaded with coordinates that define a "geographical zone" on a "pixilated image." An onboard microprocessor is programmed to determine the occurrence of an event (e.g., entering or leaving the zone) and then execute a pre-configured, local operation in response, such as locking a door or turning off an alarm (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-5). This shifts some of the system's intelligence from a central server to the remote entity itself.
• Technical Importance: The technology enabled automated, event-driven actions based on an entity's geographic position, providing a framework for sophisticated geo-fencing applications beyond simple location tracking (’982 Patent, col. 7:12-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-16, with a specific focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16, ¶21).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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;
  • 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. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities generally as Defendant's "Accused Products" and "systems, products, and services in the field of wireless control" (Compl. ¶16, ¶21). Given the defendant, this refers to the OnStar suite of in-vehicle safety, security, and telematics services.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that infringe the ’982 Patent (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges that through Defendant's actions, "the claimed-invention embodiments as a whole" are put into service and perform (Compl. ¶21).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of how the accused OnStar services specifically operate. The allegations are framed at a high level, focused on the general field of "wireless control" (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exhibit B" claim chart that purportedly details infringement of claim 1, but this exhibit was not attached to the filed complaint provided for analysis (Compl. ¶21). In its absence, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core narrative theory is that OnStar's telematics systems practice the patented method. This suggests Plaintiff's position is that OnStar's services involve (1) loading geographic data (the "plurality of coordinates") to in-vehicle units (the "transponder"); (2) using that data within the vehicle unit to define virtual boundaries (the "geographical zone"); (3) having the in-vehicle unit's processor monitor for events relative to those boundaries (e.g., a crash within a specific area); and (4) triggering an automated response (the "configurable operation").

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires defining a zone by "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image." A central question for claim construction and infringement will be whether the mapping technology used by OnStar, which likely relies on modern vector-based geographic information systems, falls within the scope of the term "pixilated image" as it is used and described in the patent (’982 Patent, col. 2:10-18, Fig. 5A).
  • Technical Questions: The claim recites "programming a microprocessor of the transponder" to both "define a geographical zone" and "determine the occurrence of an event." This language raises the question of where the critical processing occurs in the accused OnStar system. The case may turn on whether these functions are performed locally by the in-vehicle hardware, as the claim appears to require, or by remote servers communicating with the vehicle, which may suggest a fundamental difference in system architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "pixilated image"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the second limitation of independent claim 1 and is fundamental to how a "geographical zone" is defined. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether OnStar's method for representing geographic areas can be characterized as creating or using a "pixilated image."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract describes mapping coordinates "on a pixilated image," which could be argued to encompass any digital representation of geography that is ultimately based on a grid or rendered as pixels (’982 Patent, Abstract). Parties advocating for a broader scope might argue it is not limited to a specific file format but to the concept of a grid-based map.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example of creating an 80x80-pixel map and forming a "contiguous array of pixels" to enclose a shape (’982 Patent, col. 15:32-40; Fig. 5A). This could support a narrower construction limited to raster or bitmap-style image data, as opposed to more modern vector graphics used in many GIS applications.

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 1 dictates the location where the zone definition is created. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is central to determining whether the accused system's architecture aligns with the claimed invention's emphasis on local processing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "programming" is accomplished when a remote server sends rules or boundary data to the transponder, which the transponder's microprocessor then uses to internally recognize or "define" the zone for its monitoring tasks.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites that the microprocessor itself is programmed "to define" the zone "by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image." This suggests the microprocessor performs the computational act of generation, rather than merely receiving and storing a fully-formed zone definition from an external source (’982 Patent, Claim 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions to customers on how to use the infringing systems via its website and manuals (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). The contributory infringement allegation asserts that the accused service is not a staple commercial product and that its only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶23).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’982 Patent from at least the filing date of the complaint (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to prove pre-suit knowledge during discovery (Compl. ¶22, fn. 2).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological translation and claim scope: can the term "pixilated image", which the patent describes in the context of a specific 80x80 pixel grid, be construed to cover the modern, likely vector-based, mapping and geographic data systems used by the accused OnStar services?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural locus: does the accused OnStar system perform the claimed steps of "defin[ing] a geographical zone" and "determin[ing] the occurrence of an event" primarily within the in-vehicle "transponder," as recited in the patent, or are these critical functions executed on remote servers, raising questions about whether any single actor performs all steps of the claimed method?