WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Raytheon Tech Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wirelesswerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Raytheon Technologies Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01059, W.D. Tex., 10/07/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, including a specific address in El Paso, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s harrier tracking product line infringes a patent related to methods and systems for remotely controlling movable entities using pre-configured geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using GPS-equipped transponders on movable assets to autonomously monitor events, such as entering or exiting a geofence, and execute pre-programmed operations.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a divisional of an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 and claims priority to a 2004 provisional application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or other procedural events.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-11-05	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037
2011-08-30	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037
2019-06-10	Earliest date cited for availability of Accused Product
2022-10-07	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037 - “Method and System to Control Moveable Entities”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while GPS tracking systems were useful for locating vehicles, their benefits had not been maximized beyond simply relaying position data to a central server for plotting on a map (’037 Patent, col. 1:45-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a transponder on a movable entity is loaded with coordinates that define a geographical zone, such as a geofence (’037 Patent, Abstract). A microprocessor within the transponder is programmed to define this zone by creating an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" using the loaded coordinates, and can then execute a configurable operation based on a command from a control center related to the entity's status relative to that zone (’037 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:58-col. 3:4). This allows for more autonomous, event-driven monitoring and control.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for more sophisticated, event-driven logic to be executed locally on the asset itself, potentially reducing the need for constant communication with a central server. (’037 Patent, col. 6:49-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• 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 additional claims (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentality is identified as "Raytheon's harrier tracking product line" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges this is a "tracking product line" and provides a web archive URL for the product (Compl. ¶15). It further states that the products are available to businesses and individuals in the United States and the State of Texas (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific functionality or operation of the accused product line.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that an attached claim chart in Exhibit B describes the infringement of "an exemplary claim 1" (Compl. ¶22). However, this exhibit was not included with the public filing of the complaint. The pleading alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through Defendant's actions of making, using, testing, selling, and offering for sale the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). Without the claim chart, the specific theory of how the accused product meets each claim element is not detailed in the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The final limitation of Claim 1 recites "sending a command to the transponder to execute a configurable operation upon receiving a command from a control center." The structure of this clause raises the question of whether it requires two distinct command events—one received from the control center, which in turn causes a second command to be sent to the transponder's execution module—or if it can be satisfied by a more integrated process initiated by a single instruction from the control center.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires defining a geographical zone by "creating an area on a pixilated image." A central technical question will be what evidence the plaintiff can provide that the accused "harrier tracking product line" internally represents geofences using a "pixilated image" on the transponder itself, as opposed to another data structure such as a list of coordinates or vector-based polygons.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "pixilated image"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the "programming" step of Claim 1 and describes the method of defining the geographical zone within the transponder. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification describes a specific, multi-step process for creating and using such an image, including drawing an 80x80 pixel map and testing for inclusion by counting boundary crossings (’037 Patent, col. 15:6-54). The infringement analysis may turn on whether this term is limited to that specific embodiment or can cover other digital map representations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may note that the patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term, suggesting it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art at the time.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope may point to the detailed description of creating the zone on an "80/80-pixel map" as the only disclosed method for practicing the invention, suggesting the claim term should be limited to that specific implementation (’037 Patent, col. 15:28-41).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to Defendant "indirectly" developing products and "direct[ing] infringing activities" in its general allegations (Compl. ¶3). However, Count I, the sole count for infringement, alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and pleads no specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶17).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful" but alleges that "Defendant has made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '037 Patent were invalid" (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. These allegations may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages based on post-suit conduct.

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

• A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: given that the complaint's referenced claim chart (Exhibit B) is not provided, a threshold issue is whether the bare allegation of infringement, without a detailed factual theory, is sufficient to state a plausible claim under current federal pleading standards.
• A core substantive issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "pixilated image", which is described with a specific implementation in the patent's detailed description, be construed broadly enough to read on the potentially different geofencing technology used in the modern accused product?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: how does the command-and-control architecture of the accused "harrier tracking product line" actually function? The case may turn on whether its operation can be shown to meet the claim's arguably two-step process of "sending a command... upon receiving a command."