DCT
2:25-cv-00969
WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Flytrex Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Flytrex Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00969, E.D. Tex., 09/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drone delivery services infringe a patent related to methods for controlling movable entities within defined geographical zones.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves geofencing and remote monitoring, foundational concepts for fleet management, logistics, and autonomous vehicle operations like drone delivery.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses, but asserts that these agreements did not require patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they were not for the production of a patented article.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-05 | ’037 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-08-30 | ’037 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-09-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037 - "Method and System to Control Movable Entities"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in then-current GPS vehicle tracking systems, which were primarily used for passively relaying location information to a control center for plotting on a map, noting that their benefits "are yet to be maximized" (’037 Patent, col. 1:46-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more active control system. It discloses a method where a geographical zone is defined and loaded into a transponder on a movable entity (’037 Patent, Abstract). This zone can be created from a "plurality of waypoints," with each waypoint defined by a geographical coordinate and a radius, or by creating an enclosed area on a "pixilated image" using a set of coordinates (’037 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-65). A microprocessor on the transponder determines when an "event" occurs related to the entity's position relative to this zone and is configured to execute a "configurable operation" in response (’037 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a shift from passive GPS tracking to active, geofence-based monitoring and control, enabling automated actions based on an asset's entry into or exit from predefined virtual boundaries (’037 Patent, col. 1:52-col. 2:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the ’037 Patent (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A method to wirelessly manage an entity having a transponder, comprising:
- loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates;
- programming a microprocessor in the transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates, wherein said area is representative of a geographical zone; and
- sending a command to the transponder to execute a configurable operation upon receiving a command from a control center, the command being associated with a status of the entity in relation to the geographical zone.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-65 (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's "Accused Products and Services," which include its drone delivery systems and services (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant operates a drone delivery service in several Texas locations, including Little Elm, Wylie, and Granbury (Compl. ¶2). A visual provided in the complaint depicts maps with designated "Drone Delivery Zones" for these locations, suggesting the service operates within predefined geographical areas (Compl. p. 1, Fig. 1). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused drone systems, such as how flight paths are managed or how the delivery zones are implemented in software (Compl. ¶¶16-19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing; therefore, the following chart is constructed from the general allegations and available evidence in the complaint.
| 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 | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶16 | col. 2:59-62 |
| programming a microprocessor in the transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates... | Defendant’s drone delivery services operate within defined "Drone Delivery Zones," which are allegedly the claimed "geographical zone." Figure 1 in the complaint displays a map with these designated zones. | ¶2; p. 1, Fig. 1 | col. 2:62-65 |
| sending a command to the transponder to execute a configurable operation upon receiving a command from a control center, the command being associated with a status of the entity in relation to the geographical zone | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶16 | col. 2:40-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "pixilated image," which the patent describes as being implemented via an 80x80 grid, can be construed to cover the mapping technology used in the accused modern drone delivery system (’037 Patent, col. 15:31-40). The defense may argue that its system utilizes different data structures (e.g., vector graphics, coordinate lists) that do not meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not allege specific facts explaining how the accused system performs the final step of Claim 1, which requires "sending a command... upon receiving a command from a control center." The analysis will question what evidence exists for this specific command-and-response structure, particularly as the patent specification also describes autonomous operations by the transponder, creating potential ambiguity (’037 Patent, Abstract).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pixilated image"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the data structure used for the claimed "geographical zone." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine if the claim is limited to a specific, older form of digital mapping or if it can read on more modern mapping technologies potentially used by the Defendant.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary refers generally to defining a geographical zone "by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image," which could be argued to encompass any digital map represented by pixels (’037 Patent, col. 2:62-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific embodiment where a square is drawn around the zone and "divided into an 80/80-pixel map," with each pixel being a square (’037 Patent, col. 15:31-36). This specific example may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to this type of grid-based implementation.
The Term: "sending a command to the transponder to execute a configurable operation upon receiving a command from a control center"
Context and Importance: The structure of this claim element appears unusual and is central to defining the infringing act. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system must feature a human- or system-in-the-loop command from a "control center" that triggers a subsequent command to the drone, or if a different interpretation is possible.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a wide range of commands and configurable operations, which might support an argument that this language is intended to be flexible (’037 Patent, col. 17:4-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim requires a sequence of two commands. This contrasts with the patent's abstract, which describes the transponder's microprocessor autonomously executing an operation "if the event occurs" without mentioning an intervening command from a control center, suggesting a potential conflict between the claim language and the broader description (’037 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant instructs customers on how to use its services, that the services have no substantial non-infringing use, and that they are not a staple commercial product (Compl. ¶¶20-21). The basis for knowledge is alleged to be, at minimum, the filing date of the complaint (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of pre- and post-lawsuit willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 9, ¶¶e-f). The factual basis alleged in the complaint is limited to post-suit knowledge, starting from the date the lawsuit was filed (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixilated image," described in the patent with specific implementation details from the mid-2000s, be construed to cover the modern digital mapping and zone-definition technology used in the accused drone delivery platform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mechanics: does the complaint plausibly allege, and can Plaintiff later prove, that the accused system practices the specific and arguably ambiguous command structure of Claim 1, which requires "sending a command... upon receiving a command from a control center," or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the accused system operates?