DCT
1:25-cv-04617
WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Spytec GPS Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Spytec GPS, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04617, S.D.N.Y., 06/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a New York corporation that resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPS tracking products and associated systems infringe a patent related to methods for remotely controlling movable entities using pre-configured geographical zones (geofencing).
- Technical Context: The technology involves asset tracking systems where a remote device uses GPS to monitor its location and can trigger pre-programmed actions when it enters or exits a defined geographic area.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes prior settlement licenses related to its patent portfolio, arguing these do not trigger patent marking requirements because the licensees did not admit infringement or agree to produce a patented article. The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent from the filing date of the lawsuit forward.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 Priority Date |
| 2008-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 Issue Date |
| 2025-06-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 - "Method and System to Control Movable Entities"
- 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 asserts that prior art vehicle tracking systems were limited to relaying GPS information to a central server for display on a map, lacking the ability for the remote device to perform autonomous actions based on its location (’982 Patent, col. 2:48-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a "transponder" on a movable entity is loaded with data defining a geographical zone. This zone can be defined by "waypoints" (coordinates with a radius) or as an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" (’982 Patent, Abstract). A microprocessor within the transponder itself is programmed to determine when a location-based "event" occurs (e.g., entering or leaving the zone) and is configured to automatically execute a "configurable operation" (e.g., locking a door, sending an alert) in response, without needing a command from a central server (’982 Patent, col. 1:56-2:4).
- Technical Importance: This approach places control logic on the remote device, enabling autonomous, real-time responses to location-based events, which can increase efficiency and reduce reliance on constant network connectivity (’982 Patent, col. 2:28-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 20, and 43.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
- loading a plurality of coordinates to a transponder's memory
- programming a microprocessor to define a geographical zone by creating an "enclosed area on a pixilated image"
- programming the microprocessor to determine the occurrence of a location-based event
- configuring the microprocessor to execute an operation if the event occurs
- Independent Claim 20 recites a similar method, but defines the geographical zone using a "plurality of waypoints," each defined by a coordinate and a radius.
- Independent Claim 43 recites a method where a computing device identifies a "geometrical area" which is divided into a grid, with sections selected to define the zone and correlated into a "pixilated computer image" that is loaded to the transponder.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims from the asserted range of claims 1-61 (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" broadly as "Defendant's products (e.g. Spytec's website)" and the associated "system with methods and user interface for controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶15, ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" a system for GPS-based tracking and control (Compl. ¶18). Based on the allegations, this system includes remote hardware devices ("transponders") placed on movable entities and a software interface that allows users to configure and monitor those devices. The core accused functionality appears to be a geofencing feature, where users can define geographic boundaries and receive alerts or trigger actions based on the device's location relative to those boundaries. The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶19). The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations.
'982 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates | Defendant's system allegedly allows users to define geographical zones, which requires loading coordinate data defining those zones from a user's device to the remote GPS tracker. | ¶18 | col. 1:61-63 |
| programming a microprocessor of a transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates | The accused system is alleged to use the loaded coordinates to establish a geographical zone within the transponder's programming. | ¶18 | col. 1:64-2:2 |
| 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 | The accused transponder's microprocessor is alleged to be programmed to detect when the device enters or exits a pre-defined geographical zone. | ¶18 | col. 2:2-4 |
| and configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs. | The accused system is alleged to execute an operation, such as sending an alert to the user, upon the detection of a geofence event. | ¶18 | col. 2:2-4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent’s Claim 1 requires defining a zone by creating an "enclosed area on a pixilated image." A central issue may be whether the methods used by Defendant’s modern geofencing systems, which may rely on vector-based polygons rather than literal pixel maps, fall within the scope of this claim language.
- Technical Questions: The patent claims require the transponder's microprocessor to perform key functions like determining the event. A key question for discovery will be where the geofence logic is executed in the accused system. Does the remote device itself determine a zone breach, or does it transmit raw GPS data to Defendant's servers, which then perform the analysis and trigger any alerts?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pixilated image"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is central to its scope. Infringement of this claim will depend heavily on whether the accused system's method for defining a geographical zone constitutes a "pixilated image." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern systems often use vector graphics, and a narrow construction could place the accused technology outside the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the patent, "pixilated image" is used more generally to refer to any digital representation of a geographical area on a screen-based map.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of creating a zone by "drawing a square around the entire area of the zone" and dividing it into an "80/80-pixel map" (’982 Patent, col. 16:35-40). Figure 5A explicitly illustrates a map composed of a grid of pixels (’982 Patent, Fig. 5A). This evidence could support a narrower construction limited to bitmap-style representations.
The Term: "transponder"
- Context and Importance: The independent claims require that the microprocessor of the transponder performs critical steps, such as determining the event and executing an operation. The definition of "transponder" is therefore critical to identifying the location of the infringing activity. If the accused remote device is a simple data transmitter and all logic is executed on Defendant's servers, it raises questions of divided infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term refers to the entire client-side system, including the hardware and any associated software that makes it function as claimed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the "transponder" as a discrete hardware unit containing the CPU, memory, and modems, distinct from the backend "control system" (’982 Patent, col. 5:2-14; Fig. 2). This suggests the claimed processing must occur locally on the remote device itself.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by encouraging and instructing customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner, specifically to "control an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶20). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant's products are not staple articles of commerce and that their only reasonable use is an infringing one, supported by instructions on its website and in manuals (Compl. ¶21).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’982 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶20). This appears to be a claim for post-filing willfulness, contingent on Defendant's continued alleged infringement after being served with the complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixilated image", which the patent describes as a literal grid of pixels, be construed to cover the potentially vector-based methods for defining geofences used in modern GPS tracking systems?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural functionality: does the accused system's processing logic for detecting geofence events and executing responsive operations reside on the remote "transponder" device itself, as required by the patent’s independent claims, or does this processing occur primarily on Defendant's central servers?
- A third central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of technical specifics, discovery will be required to determine what evidence exists that the accused products actually perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the on-device processing and zone definition requirements.