WirelessWerx IP LLC v. AT&T Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: AT&T, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00750, E.D. Tex., 07/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AT&T Secure Family service infringes a patent related to methods and systems for remotely controlling movable entities using transponders and pre-configured geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves geofencing, where a system monitors an entity's location relative to defined boundaries and executes automated actions or alerts based on events like entering or leaving a zone.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been on notice of the patent-in-suit since at least February 14, 2025, the filing date of a previous, unspecified lawsuit. Plaintiff, a non-practicing entity, also references prior settlement licenses with other entities, arguing these do not create a patent marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

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 Jan. 29, 2008)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to advance beyond existing GPS tracking systems, which were primarily limited to relaying location information to a control center for display on a map, noting that their benefits were "yet to be maximized" (’982 Patent, col. 1:49-54). The technical problem was the lack of sophisticated, automated, and configurable local control over a tracked entity based on its position and other events.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system where a transponder attached to a movable entity is loaded with data defining geographical zones. A microprocessor within the transponder is programmed to monitor the entity's status relative to these zones and, upon detecting a defined event (e.g., crossing a boundary), automatically execute a pre-configured operation (e.g., sending an alert or locking a door) (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-5). This shifts control logic from a central server to the remote transponder itself, enabling autonomous, rule-based actions.
• Technical Importance: This approach enables automated, real-time enforcement of location-based rules, which is foundational for applications in fleet management, asset security, and parental monitoring (’982 Patent, col. 1:36-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-61, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • 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 additional dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "AT&T Secure Family and its related products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that AT&T "maintains, operates, and administers a system with methods and user interface for controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶18). This system is marketed as a security service, and the complaint alleges it allows users to control a remote entity in a manner that infringes the ’982 Patent (Compl. ¶18, ¶21). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the architecture or operation of the AT&T Secure Family service beyond alleging that it performs the functions recited in the patent claims.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶19). Accordingly, the infringement theory is based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

Plaintiff alleges that the AT&T Secure Family system directly infringes the ’982 Patent by providing a system for "controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶18). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the AT&T service allows users to define geographical zones (geofences) for a monitored entity (e.g., a family member's smartphone) and configure the system to take certain actions when that entity crosses a zone boundary, thereby practicing the methods of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17-18).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent's specification and figures heavily feature a dedicated hardware "transponder" ("105") installed in a "vehicle" ("115") ('982 Patent, Figs. 1A, 2). A central question will be whether a modern smartphone running a software application, the likely instrumentality in the AT&T Secure Family service, constitutes a "transponder" attached to a "movable entity" as those terms are used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "programming a microprocessor of the transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image." This suggests the geofence logic is created and processed on the remote device itself. A key factual question will be whether the accused AT&T system performs this specific process on the end-user device, or if it relies on a different architecture, such as server-side logic or native operating system APIs for geofence monitoring, which may not align with the claimed method (’982 Patent, col. 15:20-29; Claim 1). The complaint does not provide evidence on this technical point.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "transponder"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because the accused product is likely a software application on a general-purpose device (a smartphone), whereas the patent's specification consistently depicts a dedicated hardware unit installed in a vehicle. The outcome of the case may hinge on whether a smartphone can be considered a "transponder" under the patent's claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the transponder functionally as containing a microprocessor, memory, and a communications modem, all of which are present in a smartphone (’982 Patent, col. 5:2-15). The patent also states it can be "mounted, attached, manufactured, or otherwise included upon/in various articles or entities," which could be argued to include a person carrying a phone (’982 Patent, col. 5:34-36).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description consistently illustrate the transponder as a discrete hardware box ("105") with specific physical connectors and housing, separate from the vehicle it monitors (’982 Patent, Figs. 2, 3A-3C). Parties may argue that the term, as understood in the art at the time of invention, implied a dedicated device that responds to an interrogation signal, not a general-purpose computing device.

• The Term: "programming a microprocessor of the transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the required architecture of the infringing system. Its construction will determine whether the geofence creation logic must reside and execute on the end-user device itself, or if server-side processing is permissible.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "programming" the microprocessor is satisfied by loading pre-computed zone data from a server, which the device's microprocessor then uses for location checks. The claim language requires "loading... a plurality of coordinates" before the "programming" step, which could imply that the data for the zone is prepared externally.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "creating an enclosed area" suggests an active process performed by the transponder's microprocessor itself. The specification supports this by describing the transponder using logic to define a "bounding" box and then pixilating it, which points to a self-contained definition process on the remote device (’982 Patent, col. 15:20-29).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that AT&T provides instructions to its customers on how to use the Secure Family service in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the service is not a staple commercial product and that AT&T provides it knowing it will be used to infringe (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is predicated on AT&T having knowledge of the ’982 Patent since at least February 14, 2025, due to a "previous lawsuit" (Compl. ¶20, ¶21). This alleged notice predates the filing of the current complaint, forming the basis for the pre-suit willfulness claim.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transponder," which is described in the 2004-priority-date patent with examples of dedicated hardware boxes for vehicles, be construed to cover a modern smartphone running a software application?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: does AT&T's cloud-based Secure Family service perform the specific, device-centric process of "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image" on the microprocessor of the user's device as required by Claim 1, or does it utilize a fundamentally different technical architecture (e.g., server-side logic) for its geofencing functionality?