WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00007, W.D. Tex., 01/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, including an office in Austin, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services providing location-based monitoring infringe a patent related to selectively communicating with portable devices within predefined geographical zones based on the occurrence of an event.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to "geofencing," where a virtual boundary triggers an action on a mobile device, a key feature in modern location-based services for applications ranging from parental controls to asset tracking.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities, which it argues did not create a marking requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 287. The complaint also presents extensive pre-emptive arguments regarding the patent’s eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggesting an anticipation of a validity challenge on that basis.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927 - “Method and System to Monitor Persons Utilizing Wireless Media”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927, “Method and System to Monitor Persons Utilizing Wireless Media,” issued January 8, 2008.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art personal tracking systems as requiring constant monitoring and data transmission, which is inefficient (Compl. ¶13; ’927 Patent, col. 1:60-63). These systems lacked the processing power at the client-device level to provide more efficient, "exception-based" reporting (Compl. ¶13; ’927 Patent, col. 1:52-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a portable device (described as a "PDA") is loaded with data representing a geographical zone (Compl. ¶12; ’927 Patent, Abstract). The device uses its own positioning unit (e.g., GPS) to determine its location relative to this predefined zone and is programmed to transmit an "event message" to a second device only upon the occurrence of a specific event, such as entering or exiting the zone (Compl. ¶12; ’927 Patent, col. 2:16-28). This event-driven approach avoids continuous data transfer. The complaint provides a highlighted excerpt from the patent's summary to emphasize this event-based reporting solution (Compl. p. 10).
• Technical Importance: By shifting from continuous tracking to event-based reporting, the patented method aimed to reduce data transmission, thereby preserving bandwidth and battery life on mobile devices (Compl. ¶25; ’927 Patent, col. 5:23-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-16, with a focus on exemplary claim 2 (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).
• Independent Claim 1, on which claim 2 depends, includes the following essential elements:
  • Defining a geographical zone using latitude and longitude attributes.
  • Loading data for the zone to a first portable device, where the data includes attributes mapped to pixels in a "pixilated computer image" of the zone.
  • Providing the first portable device with a ground positioning unit receiver to get its geographical coordinates.
  • Configuring the first portable device to determine its location relative to the "pixilated computer image".
  • Programming a microprocessor on the device to determine the occurrence of an event based on its status relative to the zone.
  • Permitting the microprocessor to transmit an event message to a "second portable device".
• The complaint explicitly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "Defendant's Accused Products" and "products and services" that provide location-based functionality (Compl. ¶30, ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products practice the claimed methods by enabling selective communication with a portable device within pre-defined geographical zones (Compl. ¶12). The functionality is described as allowing the device to determine its location, determine if an event has occurred in relation to a geographical zone, and then transmit a message upon that event (Compl. ¶13, ¶21). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on how any specific Samsung product operates.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶35). The narrative infringement theory, primarily for claim 2, is based on allegations that Defendant's products perform each step of the claimed method. The complaint presents highlighted sections of the patent claims to support its theory (Compl. pp. 8-9). The core allegation is that Defendant's products and services implement geofencing features that allow a portable device to define a zone, determine its position relative to that zone, and trigger a notification (an "event message") to another device or service upon crossing the zone's boundary (an "event") (Compl. ¶13, ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how any accused product implements the "pixilated computer image" limitation. A central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that Defendant’s products, which may use modern vector-based or other mapping technologies, use a "pixilated computer image" as described in the patent specification (e.g., a grid of activated pixels) ('927 Patent, col. 15:35-43).
  • Scope Questions: The complaint does not specify what constitutes the "second portable device" in the accused system. A key question for the court will be whether this term can be construed to cover a cloud-based server, which is common in modern location-sharing services, or if it is limited to another personal device like a phone or PDA, as contemplated in the patent's embodiments ('927 Patent, col. 8:10-14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "pixilated computer image"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to how the geographical zone is defined and used on the portable device. The infringement analysis may turn on whether modern mapping systems, which may not use a simple grid of "activated" pixels, fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to broadly cover any digital representation of a map on a screen, which is inherently composed of pixels.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of creating the image by dividing a map into a grid, selecting sections, and "activating the pixels that lie on the lines" to form a shape, suggesting a specific technical structure rather than any generic map display ('927 Patent, col. 2:56-65; col. 15:35-43).

• The Term: "second portable device"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the recipient of the "event message." The viability of the infringement claim against a modern cloud-based architecture depends on whether a server can be considered a "second portable device."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "portable device." Plaintiff may argue that in the context of a distributed system, a remote server that is part of the communication system functions as the second device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently provides examples where the second device is a PDA, cell phone, or smart phone carried by another person (e.g., a parent or a doctor), suggesting a peer-to-peer or person-to-person monitoring context ('927 Patent, col. 2:50-52; col. 8:10-14, 35-37). The patent abstract also distinguishes between the "first portable device" and a "second portable device."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant instructs its customers on how to use the infringing features of its products and services (Compl. ¶36). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging there are no substantial non-infringing uses for the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶37).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’927 Patent and its infringement from at least the filing date of the lawsuit, forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶36-37). Plaintiff also reserves the right to amend to allege pre-suit knowledge if discovered (Compl. ¶36 n.50).

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

1. Patent Eligibility: The complaint devotes significant space to arguing that the ’927 patent claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Compl. ¶17-26). A central question for the court will therefore be one of validity: do the claims recite a patent-ineligible abstract idea, or do they claim a specific improvement to computer functionality that overcomes an Alice challenge?

2. Claim Scope and Infringement: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixilated computer image," which the patent describes as a specific grid-based construct, be construed to cover the mapping technologies used in modern smartphones? Similarly, can the term "second portable device" read on a remote cloud server, or is it limited to a physical device in a user's possession?

3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint makes general allegations against "Accused Products" without naming a single specific product or service. A threshold evidentiary question will be one of specificity: can the Plaintiff link its infringement theories to the actual, documented operation of a specific, identified Samsung product or service?