WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Parking Guidance Systems LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Parking Guidance Systems, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00208, S.D. Tex., 01/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant has a principal and regular established place of business within the district and conducts continuous and systematic business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s parking guidance systems infringe a patent related to methods for wirelessly controlling movable entities based on their position relative to pre-defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using location-based data (e.g., from GPS) and wireless communications to actively monitor and control an entity, such as a vehicle, when it enters or leaves a pre-configured geographical area.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and addresses the issue of patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287. It discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses but argues these do not trigger marking requirements because they were executed to end litigation without any admission of infringement, a key point for preserving claims to pre-suit damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-11-05	’037 Patent Priority Date
2011-08-30	’037 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-12	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 prior art vehicle tracking systems, which were primarily confined to relaying GPS information to a control center for passive monitoring on a map. (’037 Patent, col. 2:45-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method and system where a "transponder" attached to a movable entity can be programmed with defined geographical zones. These zones can be created from a "plurality of coordinates" that are used to generate a "pixilated image" representing the zone in the transponder's memory. (’037 Patent, Abstract). The transponder's microprocessor is then configured to determine when an event occurs related to the entity's status within that zone (e.g., entering or exiting) and execute a "configurable operation" in response, enabling active, location-based control. (’037 Patent, col. 2:53-col. 3:2).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for the automation of actions based on an entity's real-time location, moving beyond simple asset tracking to enable active fleet management, geofencing, and remote control functionalities. (’037 Patent, col. 1:33-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-65, with independent claim 1 identified as exemplary (Compl. ¶14, ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A method to wirelessly manage an entity having a transponder, comprising:
  • loading a plurality of coordinates from a computing device to the transponder's memory;
  • programming a microprocessor in the transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an area on a pixilated image using said coordinates; and
  • sending a command to the transponder to execute a configurable operation upon receiving a command from a control center, where the command is associated with the entity's status relative to the geographical zone.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products and Services" offered by Defendant Parking Guidance Systems, LLC (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant develops, markets, and sells infringing products and services in the United States, including within the Southern District of Texas (Compl. ¶3). It points to Defendant’s website for "parking-solutions" as evidence of its business activities (Compl. ¶8).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical functionality of the accused products. It references a claim chart, attached as Exhibit B, that purportedly details the infringement but this exhibit was not included with the complaint document (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’037 Patent, but it references an external Exhibit B claim chart that is not provided (Compl. ¶17). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant makes, uses, and sells systems that practice the claimed methods for controlling entities within defined geographical zones (Compl. ¶14). Without the specific mappings of product features to claim elements from the exhibit, a detailed chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the "movable entities" and "transponders" described in the patent, which often exemplify vehicles in general transit, can be read to cover the technologies used in a structured parking environment. For instance, does a system that monitors a vehicle's presence in a parking space using overhead sensors or cameras meet the definition of managing an entity with an "attached transponder"?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of technical specifics raises several questions. A central dispute may concern whether the accused systems "define a geographical zone by creating an area on a pixilated image" as required by claim 1. Discovery will be needed to determine the precise mechanism by which the accused systems define and monitor zones like individual parking spaces or garage levels and whether that mechanism aligns with the patent’s specific teachings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "transponder"

Context and Importance

This term is foundational to the claimed system. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the components of Defendant's parking guidance system (which could include cameras, ultrasonic sensors, or RFID tags) fall within the scope of a "transponder" as defined by the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the transponder's function broadly as a device that "works to collect, process, and communicate information about the article or entity to which the transponder is attached." (’037 Patent, col. 6:22-25). This functional description could support an interpretation that includes a wide array of modern sensor and communication technologies.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments in the patent depict the transponder as a specific self-contained hardware unit comprising a CPU, GPS receiver, memory module, and cellular/satellite modems (’037 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 9:1-11). This could support a narrower construction limited to an intelligent, GPS-enabled device physically attached to the entity.

The Term: "define a geographical zone by creating an area on a pixilated image"

Context and Importance

This phrase from claim 1 recites a specific method for defining the zone. Whether the accused system infringes will depend on if its method of defining, for example, a parking space on a digital map constitutes "creating an area on a pixilated image" in the manner claimed.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that any digital representation of a geographical area on a computer screen is inherently a "pixilated image," potentially bringing modern digital mapping systems within the claim's scope.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process where a square is drawn around a zone and divided into an "80/80-pixel map" to which the geographical area is mapped (’037 Patent, col. 15:29-38). This detailed embodiment may support a narrower interpretation requiring this specific pixel-mapping technique.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendant encourages infringement by providing customers with instructions, manuals, and online support on how to use the accused systems (Compl. ¶18-19). It further alleges the products are not staple articles of commerce and their only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’037 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" as the basis for post-suit induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶18, ¶19). The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of pre-lawsuit willful infringement, though the factual allegations in the complaint's body do not specify a basis for pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶27(e)).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transponder," as described in the patent with specific hardware embodiments like a GPS receiver and CPU, be construed to cover the sensing and identification technologies (e.g., cameras, ultrasonic sensors) allegedly used in the accused parking guidance systems?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will demonstrate that the accused system performs the specific method of "defin[ing] a geographical zone by creating an area on a pixilated image," as required by Claim 1, or does it utilize a technically distinct and non-infringing method for defining its operational areas?
• A threshold damages question will be whether patent marking rules apply: can Plaintiff successfully argue that its history of litigation settlements with third parties does not trigger the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, thereby preserving its ability to seek damages for infringement that occurred before the lawsuit was filed?