WirelessWerx IP LLC v. AT&T

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: AT&T, Inc., d/b/a Firstnet (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00182, E.D. Tex., 02/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district and has committed or induced acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Firstnet products and services, which provide communications and control for mobile entities, infringe a patent related to systems for remotely controlling movable entities using geofencing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that define virtual geographic boundaries (geofences) and automatically trigger pre-programmed actions when a GPS-tracked entity enters, exits, or interacts with these boundaries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with several other entities, but asserts these licenses do not trigger patent 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

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 describes a market where existing GPS tracking systems were largely limited to passively relaying an entity's location to a control center for display on a map, which failed to maximize the potential for active, automated control and safety improvements ('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." This is achieved by creating an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" within the transponder's memory ('982 Patent, col. 2:56-65). A microprocessor on the transponder is programmed to monitor the entity's status relative to this zone and automatically execute a "configurable operation" (e.g., locking a door, turning off the ignition) if a predefined event occurs ('982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4).
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled a shift from simple location tracking to intelligent, event-driven remote control, allowing for automated enforcement of operational rules and security protocols without constant human oversight ('982 Patent, col. 1:35-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-61, which includes independent claims 1, 20, and 43 ('982 Patent, col. 27:30, 29:20, 30:43; Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • 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 other claims, including dependent claims, from the patent (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Firstnet's products" and services (Compl. ¶15). The complaint specifically references a user guide for a "firstnet-rapid-response-web-dispatch" system (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is a "system with methods and user interface for controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶18). The Firstnet service is generally known as a communications platform for first responders. The allegations suggest this platform includes functionality for tracking and controlling mobile units in the field, which would align with the technology described in the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused system.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶19). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the complaint’s narrative allegations, which state that Defendant’s system for controlling an entity with a transponder infringes the patent (Compl. ¶18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'982 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations are highly general. A primary point of contention will be whether the accused "Firstnet" system, likely a modern software- and network-based service, practices the specific steps recited in the claims, which describe programming a "microprocessor of a transponder" to create a "pixilated image."
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system creates a geofence by defining a "pixilated image" as taught in the patent specification (e.g., creating an 80x80 pixel map from a bounding box), or if it uses a different, non-infringing method for geofence definition.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "transponder"

• Context and Importance: The claims require several actions (e.g., programming, defining a zone) to occur within the "transponder." The definition of this term is critical to determining where the infringing acts must take place—on the mobile unit itself or distributed across a network.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent depicts the transponder as part of a larger system that communicates with a backend control system, which performs certain functions (e.g., '982 Patent, Fig. 1A). A party could argue the term encompasses a distributed system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the transponder as a physical device "attached" to the movable entity ('982 Patent, col. 2:60-61). Figure 2 shows the transponder as a self-contained board with a CPU, memory, and modems. This may support a construction limiting the term to the hardware on the mobile unit.

The Term: "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific mechanism for creating a geofence. Whether the accused system's method of defining a zone meets this limitation will be central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term covers any modern digital map representation that is ultimately rendered via pixels.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation where a "bounding square" is drawn around coordinates and then divided into an "80/80-pixel map" ('982 Patent, col. 16:34-39). Practitioners may focus on whether this detailed description limits the claim's scope to that particular method.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendant instructs its customers on how to use the infringing system, citing a user guide for a "rapid-response-web-dispatch" product as evidence of such instructions (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused system is not a staple product and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which would support a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21). The prayer for relief also seeks enhanced damages for willfulness if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 8, ¶ e).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technological evolution: Can the term "transponder" and the specific method of "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image," as described in a patent from the mid-2000s, be construed to read on a modern, likely cloud-based, software-as-a-service platform like Firstnet? The case may turn on whether the patent's language is tethered to the specific hardware embodiments described.
• The central evidentiary question will be one of proof: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual support mapping product features to claim limitations. A key challenge for the Plaintiff will be to uncover, through discovery, concrete evidence that the accused Firstnet system performs each element of the asserted claims, particularly the specific geofencing method recited.