WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Grubhub Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Grubhub Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00865, W.D. Tex., 12/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s food delivery platform infringes a patent related to methods for monitoring persons or devices using wireless media and pre-defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to location-based services that use GPS-enabled portable devices to trigger events and communications based on the device's position relative to pre-defined geographic areas.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927 - Methods and Systems to Monitor Persons Utilizing Wireless Media

Issued: January 8, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for more sophisticated personal monitoring systems than were available at the time, which often required constant tracking. The invention sought to create event-driven systems for monitoring children, the elderly, or workers, where data is transmitted only when specific, pre-defined conditions or exceptions are met, thereby preserving bandwidth and focusing on relevant information ('927 Patent, col. 1:26-40, 1:57-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a portable device, such as a PDA or cell phone, is loaded with data representing a "geographical zone" (e.g., a school, a worksite). The device uses its own ground positioning unit (e.g., GPS) to determine its location relative to this zone. A microprocessor on the device is programmed to detect the occurrence of an "event" based on this relationship (e.g., entering or leaving the zone) and, in response, transmit an "event message" to a second portable device, such as one held by a parent or manager ('927 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-28). The patent details methods for creating these zones, such as by using a pixilated map image where a user can define the boundary ('927 Patent, col. 14:56-65; Fig. 5B).
• Technical Importance: The approach aimed to shift intelligence to the client device, allowing it to autonomously monitor its location against defined boundaries and trigger communications only when necessary, making monitoring more efficient and configurable ('927 Patent, col. 5:20-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-16, with an exemplary analysis of claim 1 (Compl. ¶17, 22).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Defining a geographical zone using latitude and longitude attributes.
  • Loading data representing the geographical zone onto a first portable device, where the data includes attributes mapped to a pixilated computer image.
  • Providing the first portable device with a ground positioning unit receiver to obtain its geographical coordinates.
  • Configuring the first portable device to determine its location relative to the pixilated computer image of the zone.
  • Programming a microprocessor in the first portable device to determine when an "event" has occurred related to the device's status in relation to the zone.
  • Permitting the microprocessor to transmit an "event message" about the occurrence to a second portable device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general assertion of claims 1-16 implies they remain at issue (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined as "Grubhub's products (www.grubhub.com)," including its "delivery services" (Compl. ¶15, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are used to facilitate food delivery services (Compl. ¶23). This system connects customers, restaurants, and delivery drivers via software applications on portable devices (e.g., smartphones). These applications use the location data of drivers to coordinate pickup and delivery logistics. The system provides real-time status updates to customers and restaurants based on the driver's location relative to key points like the restaurant and the delivery address.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that purportedly details infringement of claims 1 and 2; however, this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶22). Therefore, the infringement theory must be inferred from the narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the Grubhub platform, particularly the applications used by delivery drivers, customers, and restaurants, performs the steps of the patented method (Compl. ¶17, 23). A likely mapping would be:

• The driver's smartphone running the Grubhub driver app is the "first portable device."

• The customer's or restaurant's device running their respective Grubhub apps is the "second portable device."

• A "geographical zone" is established around the restaurant for pickup and the customer's address for drop-off.

• The driver's app uses the phone's GPS (the "ground positioning unit receiver") to track its location.

• The app's software (the "microprocessor") determines that an "event" has occurred when the driver's location enters a pre-defined radius of the restaurant or the customer (e.g., "driver has arrived," "driver is approaching").

• Upon detecting such an event, the app transmits an "event message" (e.g., a status update notification) to the customer's or restaurant's device.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the system of dynamically generated locations around a restaurant or customer address in the Grubhub platform meets the claim requirement of a pre-defined "geographical zone" that is "loaded" onto the device and represented by a "pixilated computer image" ('927 Patent, cl. 1). The patent describes a more deliberate process of defining, pixilating, and loading static or semi-static zones ('927 Patent, col. 15:9-44).
  • Technical Questions: A question for the court will be whether the real-time status updates in the Grubhub system (e.g., "Your order is on its way") function as the claimed "event message" that is triggered by the device itself determining its status "in relation to the geographical zone" ('927 Patent, cl. 1). The defense may argue that such notifications are part of a continuous tracking and logistics system managed by a central server, rather than an autonomous, event-driven determination by the portable device as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "geographical zone"

• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claims. Its construction will determine whether the transient, address-based locations in the Grubhub system fall within the scope of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification provides a very specific and potentially limiting definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a zone can be a "home environment, a work environment, a state, a city, a commercial neighborhood, a residential neighborhood, or a school zone," which could support an argument that any defined area qualifies ('927 Patent, col. 2:50-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a specific method for creating zones by mapping coordinates to a "pixilated image," defining a "bounding" box, and activating pixels that fall on lines enclosing a shape ('927 Patent, col. 2:53-65; col. 14:56-col. 15:3). Claim 1 itself requires the data representative of the zone to include attributes "mapped to corresponding pixels in a pixilated computer image." This explicit language may support a narrower construction that requires this specific data structure, which may not be present in the accused system.

• The Term: "event related to a status of the portable device in relation to the geographical zone"

• Context and Importance: The definition of an "event" is critical to infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether a routine logistics update in a delivery workflow constitutes the type of pre-programmed, exception-based "event" the patent describes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general ("an event related to a status"), which could be argued to cover any change in location status (e.g., arrival, departure) that triggers a communication.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples of events include "surpassing a speed threshold level, entering a geographical zone, exiting a geographical zone," and "malfunction of equipment" ('927 Patent, col. 2:37-39). These examples, coupled with the specification's emphasis on "exception-based" reporting to save bandwidth, could support a narrower construction requiring a pre-configured boundary crossing or status change, as opposed to a continuous series of updates inherent in a delivery tracking system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers and partners on how to use its services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶23). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that there are "no substantial non-infringing uses" for Defendant's products and services (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The allegations are based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶23-24). This currently supports a claim for post-suit willfulness only. Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend to allege pre-suit knowledge if revealed in discovery (Compl. p. 6, n. 1-2).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "geographical zone", which the patent describes as a pre-defined, loaded, and pixilated data structure, be construed to cover the dynamic, address-centric locations used in the accused on-demand delivery platform?
2. A key legal and factual question will be one of operational correspondence: does the Grubhub system's method of providing logistical updates from a centrally-managed platform constitute the claimed method of a portable device autonomously "determin[ing] the occurrence of an event" based on its relation to a zone and transmitting a message, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the operational architecture?