WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Nissan North America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Nissan North America, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00382, N.D. Tex., 02/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services with wireless control capabilities infringe a patent related to methods for remotely monitoring and controlling movable entities using geofencing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle telematics, specifically systems that use GPS to define geographical zones and trigger pre-configured actions when a vehicle enters or exits those zones, a market-critical feature for fleet management and consumer vehicle services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities for its patents, but alleges none of these licenses were for producing a patented article, which may be raised in arguments concerning damages and marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-11-05	'982' Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/625,467)
2008-01-29	'982 Patent Issue Date
2025-02-14	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," issued January 29, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in then-current vehicle tracking systems, which were primarily confined to relaying GPS location data to a control center for display on a map, lacking sophisticated, on-device logic for automated control ('982 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a transponder attached to a movable entity (e.g., a vehicle) is loaded with coordinates that define a 'geographical zone' on a 'pixilated image' stored in its memory ('982 Patent, col. 27:32-41). The transponder's microprocessor is programmed to determine when the entity's status changes relative to this zone (e.g., entering or exiting) and, in response, "execute a configurable operation," such as locking a door or turning off the ignition ('982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-46). This approach decentralizes control logic, moving it from a central server to the remote entity itself.
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to enhance fleet management by enabling automated, location-based actions, thereby increasing efficiency, reducing operating costs, and providing new security features like remote immobilization of stolen vehicles ('982 Patent, col. 1:36-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 21).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates;
  • 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;
  • 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.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert infringement of claims 1-16 and 1-61 more broadly (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 21, 22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific Nissan products, systems, or services. It refers generally to "Defendant's Accused Products" (Compl. ¶16) and "systems, products, and services in the field of wireless control" (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services... that infringes one or more of claims 1-61 of the ’982 patent" (Compl. ¶21). The functionality is implicitly described as including the ability to wirelessly control entities based on their location, consistent with modern vehicle telematics systems that offer features like geofence alerts, remote start, and remote locking/unlocking. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more specific analysis of the accused functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that an attached but unprovided claim chart (Exhibit B) details the infringement of at least claim 1 of the '982 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Without the exhibit, the infringement theory is based on the general allegation that Defendant’s products practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the term 'pixilated image', which the patent describes as being created on the transponder from coordinates (e.g., an 80x80 grid) ('982 Patent, col. 15:56-16:1), can be construed to cover the methods used by modern telematics systems for defining geofences, which may rely on different data structures or server-side processing.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the transponder's microprocessor to be programmed to 'execute a configurable operation' upon an event ('982 Patent, col. 28:10-12). The patent provides examples such as turning an ignition on or off ('982 Patent, col. 2:40-42). A key question will be whether the accused systems, which may primarily generate notifications sent from a server to a user’s smartphone, perform an equivalent "configurable operation" as contemplated by the patent, which emphasizes direct control actions executed by the on-board transponder.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 is central to the infringement analysis because it defines the specific technical mechanism for creating the geographical zone. Practitioners may focus on this term as its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to the specific embodiment disclosed in the patent or can read on the potentially different digital mapping and geofencing technologies used in modern automotive systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that 'pixilated image' should be interpreted broadly to mean any digital representation of a geographical area, as the overall purpose is to define a zone for monitoring, a concept not inherently limited to one specific data structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of how the pixilated image is formed, including drawing a square around the zone, dividing it into an "80/80-pixel map," and activating pixels to form a "contiguous line of pixels" ('982 Patent, col. 15:56-col. 16:1; Fig. 5A). This detailed disclosure could support a narrower construction limited to this specific implementation.

2. The Term: "configurable operation"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the action taken in response to a geofencing event. Its scope is critical because the accused products may perform different types of actions (e.g., server-side alerts) than the physical, vehicle-centric operations described in the patent (e.g., locking doors, disabling ignition).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. The patent also lists a wide variety of events and operations, suggesting the term was intended to be flexible ('982 Patent, col. 2:18-49). A party could argue it covers any pre-defined, automated response to a triggering event.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes operations that directly alter the state of the vehicle itself, such as "turning on an ignition," "locking a door or latch," and "turning on a light indicator" ('982 Patent, col. 2:40-49). This could support an interpretation that requires a direct, physical change to the vehicle, potentially excluding purely informational alerts sent to a remote user.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner through user manuals and other services (Compl. ¶22). It alleges contributory infringement by claiming the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and their "only reasonable use is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶23).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’982 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," supporting a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23). Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend its complaint to allege pre-suit knowledge if revealed during discovery (Compl. p. 6, fns. 4-5).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixilated image", which is rooted in a specific 2004-era method of on-device map creation, be construed broadly enough to encompass the potentially server-based and vector-defined geofencing technologies used in Nissan’s modern connected vehicle systems?

2. A second key issue will be one of locus of control: does the accused system, which likely relies on a centralized server to process location data and send alerts to a user's device, meet the claim requirement of a transponder-based microprocessor that itself "execute[s] a configurable operation," or is there a fundamental architectural mismatch between the patent's decentralized, on-vehicle system and the accused centralized, server-based system?