Passtron LLC v. Wework Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: PassTron LLC v. WeWork Companies Inc.
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PassTron LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: WeWork Companies Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04308, S.D.N.Y., 05/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the Southern District of New York and having committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for controlling access to its facilities or services infringe a patent related to geo-verification, which gates access to data based on a user's geographic location.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns location-based access control, a security method that ties digital rights or data access to a user's verified physical presence in a specific area.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff PassTron LLC is the assignee of the patent-in-suit, possessing all rights to enforce it. No other prior litigation, licensing, or prosecution history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,455,987 - Method, system and apparatus for geo-verification

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of preventing access to data from insecure locations and preventing the upload of "fraudulent or incorrect data" when access is controlled only by conventional means like passwords ('987 Patent, col. 1:20-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system where a server stores access control rules that include one or more "approved geographic area(s)." To access data, a client device must send a request that includes its current location, specifically its "global positioning system (GPS) coordinates." The server compares the device's location to the approved area and permits access only if the device is physically within the predefined boundary ('987 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:42-col. 7:34). This method creates a "geo-fence" for digital data access.
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to add a physical-world security layer to digital systems, ensuring that users were not only authorized but also in a specific, approved physical location before accessing or submitting sensitive information ('987 Patent, col. 8:46-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 (method) and Claim 9 (server).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires:
  • Receiving a selection of an "approved location" from a client device.
  • Determining if a "licensed number of approved geographic areas" has been exceeded.
  • Generating an "approved geographic area" based on the selected location.
  • Storing access control data that includes this approved area.
  • Receiving an access request from a client device containing its "client location including global positioning system (GPS) coordinates."
  • Comparing the client location to the approved area and permitting or denying access accordingly.
• Independent Claim 9 (Server) requires:
  • A memory, a network interface, and a processor configured to perform steps nearly identical to those recited in Claim 1, including receiving location selections, checking against a licensed number, generating approved areas, and processing access requests containing GPS coordinates.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’987 Patent (Compl. ¶16). Based on the nature of the patent, these are presumably systems used by WeWork that verify a user's geographic location as a condition for granting access to data or services. The complaint does not provide further detail on the technical operation or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which is not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused systems perform every step recited in the independent claims. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems perform the specific step of "determining whether a licensed number of approved geographic areas...has been exceeded"? This limitation appears to be tied to a specific commercial licensing model that may or may not be part of the accused systems' functionality ('987 Patent, col. 5:28-33).
  • Scope Questions: The claims explicitly require the "client location" to include "global positioning system (GPS) coordinates" ('987 Patent, cl. 1, 9). A key dispute may arise over whether the accused systems use GPS data as required. If they rely on other location technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi triangulation, IP address geolocation, Bluetooth beacons), it raises the question of whether those technologies fall within the literal scope of the claim language or the doctrine of equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"client location including global positioning system (GPS) coordinates"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the infringement analysis. If interpreted narrowly to require the use of satellite-based GPS data, infringement will depend on whether the accused systems specifically process such data. If interpreted more broadly to cover any form of precise location data, the scope of the patent could be significantly wider.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions that the client location can "also include additional location data, such as signal strength fingerprinting data (e.g. WiFi fingerprint) in combination with a street address" ('987 Patent, col. 6:65-68). A party may argue this suggests "including GPS" does not mean "exclusively GPS" and that the invention contemplates a variety of location inputs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly recites "global positioning system (GPS) coordinates" in both independent claims. The abstract also specifies "GPS coordinates" as the input for the client location ('987 Patent, Abstract). This repeated, specific language may support a narrower construction where the use of GPS data is a required element, not an optional one.

"determining whether a licensed number of approved geographic areas...has been exceeded"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to describe a specific business or administrative function rather than a purely technical one. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused systems lack this specific check, it could provide a straightforward argument for non-infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term covers any mechanism that limits the quantity of defined geo-fences for an account, regardless of whether the limit is explicitly tied to a "license."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses this limitation in the context of "a number of licenses stored in database 262," linking the check to a specific data structure for managing licenses ('987 Patent, col. 5:28-33). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a system that manages and enforces limits on geographic areas based on a formal licensing or subscription scheme.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element for inducement is alleged to have begun "since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge is willful, forming a basis for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶14; Prayer for Relief ¶D). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional completeness: Does the accused WeWork system practice every claimed step, particularly the administrative check for a "licensed number of approved geographic areas"? The absence of this specific function, which appears tied to a particular business model, could be a significant hurdle for the infringement claim.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "client location including global positioning system (GPS) coordinates" be construed to cover systems that may determine user location through other prevalent means, such as Wi-Fi network identification or IP geolocation, or is the explicit mention of GPS a strict and limiting requirement of the invention?