WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Maplebear Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: MapleBear, Inc. (d/b/a Instacart) (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00208, W.D. Tex., 04/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, has regular and established locations in the district, and offers its products and services to residents of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s technology platform for connecting consumers with merchants infringes a patent related to methods for monitoring persons or devices using wireless media and pre-defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns location-based services, specifically using a portable device's GPS capabilities to determine its position relative to a pre-defined "geofence" and trigger events or communications based on that position.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927 Priority Date
2008-01-08	U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927 Issued
2024-04-23	Complaint Filed

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 advanced personal tracking and monitoring systems that go beyond simple location reporting. Existing systems lacked the on-device processing power to be "event driven," meaning they transmitted data constantly rather than only when a specific, pre-defined event occurred, consuming excess bandwidth and resources (’927 Patent, col. 2:51-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a portable device (like a PDA or cell phone) with its own processing power and a GPS receiver. This device can store data defining a "geographical zone" (a geofence) and determine its own position relative to that zone (’927 Patent, col. 2:13-24). The device is programmed to detect the occurrence of an "event" (e.g., entering or exiting the zone, or exceeding a speed threshold) and, upon detection, transmit a message to a second device or a control center (’927 Patent, col. 2:24-28; Fig. 1). This "exception-based" reporting makes monitoring more efficient.
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled more sophisticated and efficient location-based alerts and monitoring by shifting intelligence from a central server to the portable device itself, a key development for applications in personal safety, logistics, and fleet management.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-16, with a focus on exemplary claim 1 (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
• Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
  • A method of selectively communicating with a first portable device within pre-defined geographical zones, comprising:
  • defining a geographical zone utilizing latitude and longitude attributes;
  • loading data representative of the geographical zone to the first portable device... wherein the data representative of the geographical zone includes the latitude and longitude attributes mapped to corresponding pixels in a pixilated computer image...;
  • providing the first portable device with a ground positioning unit receiver...;
  • configuring the first portable device to determine the location of the first portable device in relation to the pixilated computer image...;
  • programming a microprocessor in the first portable device to determine the occurrence of an event related to a status of the portable device in relation to the geographical zone; and
  • permitting the microprocessor in the first portable device to transmit an event message indicating the occurrence of the event to a second portable device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" or "Accused Products" as "Instacart's products and technology platform for connecting consumers with restaurants and other merchants" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides a high-level description of the accused instrumentality as a platform for connecting consumers with merchants, available through www.instacart.com (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the Instacart platform, its shopper application, or its consumer application operate. It alleges the products are available throughout the U.S., including the Western District of Texas (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B, which purports to describe how "exemplary claim 1 and 2 from the ’927 Patent are infringed" (Compl. ¶22). However, Exhibit B was not provided with the complaint. The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the general allegations.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’927 Patent by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the Instacart platform, likely involving the mobile applications used by shoppers and/or customers, constitutes a system that practices the patented method. This system presumably uses the location of a portable device (e.g., a shopper's smartphone) to monitor its position relative to a geographical zone (e.g., a store location or a delivery area) and communicates event-based information (e.g., arrival at store, order completion) within the platform.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint’s application of the patent, which is focused on monitoring "persons" with portable devices, to a commercial grocery delivery platform raises several questions. A primary dispute may center on whether the components of the Instacart platform (e.g., shopper app, consumer app, backend servers) collectively meet the limitations of a "first portable device" communicating with a "second portable device" as recited in the claim.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Instacart platform uses a "pixilated computer image" on the portable device itself to determine its location relative to a geographical zone, as strictly required by claim 1. The complaint does not specify how the accused platform performs this function, which is distinct from a server simply tracking a device's GPS coordinates on a map. Another question is whether the communications within the Instacart ecosystem constitute an "event message" transmitted from a "first portable device" to a "second portable device" in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "first portable device"

• Context and Importance: The identity of the "first portable device" is foundational to the infringement analysis. The defendant may argue this term is limited to a single, self-contained unit like the PDAs described in the specification, while the plaintiff may argue it covers a distributed system, such as a shopper's smartphone running an application that communicates with Instacart's servers. The resolution of this term will determine whether the accused platform can meet the claim limitations.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "PDA is any wireless or handheld device that can be equipped with enough computing power, memory and communications mechanisms as to be able to perform the operations described herein. As such, the PDA can be a cellular phone, a pager, a Blackberry device, personal data assistant, a laptop..." (’927 Patent, col. 31:11-17). This broad definition could support including modern smartphones.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the "first portable device" itself to contain the ground positioning unit, the microprocessor, and be configured to determine its own location relative to the pixilated image. This suggests a self-sufficient device, potentially narrower than a smartphone app that relies on server-side logic for certain functions. The patent repeatedly refers to the device as a "PDA" with "high computing power" to perform analysis locally, distinguishing it from systems reliant on a "remote, server-based control center" (’927 Patent, col. 2:51-54, col. 5:29-33).

• The Term: "pixilated computer image"

• Context and Importance: This term is a specific technical limitation. Infringement requires showing that the accused system uses this precise mechanism for geofencing, not just any method of comparing GPS coordinates to a defined area. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern location services may use different, more abstract data representations for geofences.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer significant language that would broaden this term beyond its plain meaning. A plaintiff may argue it covers any digital map representation composed of pixels.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of creating this image: defining a "bounding" square, pixilating it, marking pixels where coordinates fall, and extending lines between them to form an enclosed area (’927 Patent, col. 14:58-67). A defendant could argue this detailed description limits the claim term to this specific method of creating and using a pixel-based map for location determination, as opposed to vector-based maps or coordinate-list polygons.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products and services to cause infringement (Compl. ¶23). For contributory infringement, it alleges there are "no substantial non-infringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge of the patent and its underlying technology "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶23, ¶24). The complaint explicitly reserves the right to amend and add allegations of pre-suit willfulness if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge (Compl. p. 6, n.1-2). Plaintiff requests a declaration that post-lawsuit infringement is willful (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff provide evidence that the Instacart platform practices the specific method of geofencing recited in claim 1, namely by loading a "pixilated computer image" onto a portable device and using that image for on-device location determination, or do the accused products use a technically distinct, non-infringing method?
• A second central question will be one of claim scope and architecture: Does the claimed "first portable device" read on a modern smartphone running a third-party application that interacts with remote servers, or is the term limited by the patent's disclosure to a more self-contained device that performs all critical processing locally? The answer will likely determine if the distributed architecture of the accused platform can be mapped onto the claim's elements.
• An evidentiary question will be whether the general allegations in the complaint can be substantiated with specific proof. Given the lack of a detailed infringement chart, discovery will be critical in revealing the actual operation of the accused platform and whether it aligns with the patent's claims.