WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Neighborfavor Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: NeighborFavor, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00866, W.D. Tex., 12/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has "regular and established places of business" within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s on-demand delivery platform infringes a patent related to methods for monitoring a wireless device's location relative to pre-defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using a portable device's own processing capabilities to determine its position relative to a geofence and trigger communications, a foundational concept for modern logistics and location-based services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. No other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

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 systems to monitor the location of individuals such as children, elderly persons, or employees in distributed businesses, using emerging GPS technology available on portable devices ('927 Patent, col. 1:24-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a portable wireless device (e.g., a PDA or cell phone) is loaded with data defining a specific geographical zone. The device itself uses an integrated GPS receiver to determine its own location and compares it to the pre-defined zone ('927 Patent, Abstract). Instead of constantly transmitting location data, the device is designed to be "event driven," meaning it only transmits a message to a second device when a specific event occurs, such as entering or exiting the zone, thereby preserving bandwidth ('927 Patent, col. 1:61-64; col. 2:25-29).
• Technical Importance: By placing the logical analysis and decision-making capability on the portable device rather than solely on a remote server, the invention aimed to create an "intelligent device" that could operate more efficiently given the bandwidth and processing constraints of the time ('927 Patent, col. 5:20-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-16, with an exemplary analysis focused on claim 1 (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
  • A method of selectively communicating with a first portable device.
  • Defining a geographical zone using latitude and longitude attributes.
  • Loading data representing this zone onto the first portable device, where the data is specifically a "pixilated computer image" of the zone.
  • Providing the first portable device with a GPS receiver to get its position.
  • Configuring the first portable device to determine its own location "in relation to the pixilated computer image."
  • Programming a microprocessor on the first portable device to determine when an event occurs related to its status within the zone.
  • Permitting the microprocessor to transmit an "event message" to a second portable device.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "HEB's products and technology platform for connecting consumers with restaurants and other merchants," identified with the website www.favordelivery.com (Compl. ¶15). The complaint uses the names NeighborFavor, Inc. and HEB to refer to the Defendant.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides a high-level description of the accused product as a technology platform. The functionality implied by the infringement allegations involves a system where portable devices (presumably carried by delivery drivers) are tracked relative to geographical locations (such as restaurants and customer addresses) to facilitate on-demand delivery services. The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the architecture or operation of the accused platform.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not filed with the public-facing complaint document (Compl. ¶22). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s platform, by making, using, and selling its delivery service, practices the method claimed in at least claim 1 of the '927 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The core of the allegation appears to be that the delivery platform uses portable devices with GPS to track their location relative to defined zones (e.g., merchant or customer locations) and triggers communications within the network based on location-related events.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the claim term "pixilated computer image." Claim 1 requires that the geographical zone is represented and stored on the portable device in this specific format. The question for the court will be whether the accused platform's method of defining and storing geofences meets this limitation, especially if it uses modern vector-based mapping data rather than the specific pixel-map structure detailed in the patent's specification (e.g., '927 Patent, col. 15:43-50).
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "configuring the first portable device to determine the location...in relation to the pixilated computer image." This language suggests that the location analysis (comparing GPS coordinates to the geofence) occurs on the client device itself. A key technical question will be whether the accused platform performs this determination on the portable device (client-side) or sends raw location data to a central server for processing (server-side). The complaint does not provide evidence to resolve this architectural question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"pixilated computer image"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 and is highly specific. The outcome of its construction could be dispositive for infringement, as it defines the required data structure for the geographical zone on the portable device. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern location-based services often use vector data, not pre-rendered pixel maps, for geofencing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any digital map data that is ultimately rendered as pixels on a screen could fall within the plain meaning of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides a detailed description of creating this image by dividing a map into a grid, associating sections with pixels, and conducting boundary tests on this specific pixel map ('927 Patent, FIG. 5B; col. 15:43-col. 16:50). This detailed embodiment may be used to argue that the term is limited to this specific implementation and does not cover other forms of digital map data.

"configuring the first portable device to determine the location"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for establishing where the core analytical step of the claimed method occurs. Infringement may depend on whether this determination is made on the portable device itself or on a remote server.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that a portable device running an app that is part of a larger client-server system is "configured to determine" its location, even if final processing is aided by a server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary emphasizes the "intelligent device" concept, where the "placement of logical analysis and decision-making capability in the PDA" is a key feature that distinguishes it from systems reliant on a "remote, server-based control center" ('927 Patent, col. 5:24-33). This language suggests the "determination" must be performed locally on the device.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The factual basis alleged is that Defendant instructs its customers on how to use the infringing services, and that there are no substantial non-infringing uses for the accused platform (Compl. ¶23-24).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the '927 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" as a basis for ongoing indirect infringement (Compl. ¶23-24). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge but reserves the right to do so if revealed in discovery (Compl. ¶23, n.1). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixilated computer image," which is described in the patent as a specific grid-based data structure, be construed to cover the likely vector-based or coordinate-based geofencing methods used in a modern on-demand delivery platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural location: does the accused platform perform the critical step of determining a device's location relative to a geofence on the portable device itself, as required by the claim language, or is this function performed on Defendant's remote servers, potentially creating a mismatch with the patent's client-side processing model?