WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Zebra Tech Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Zebra Technologies Corporation (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00094, W.D. Tex., 02/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for mapping and control infringe a patent related to methods for wirelessly controlling movable entities within defined geographical zones.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to GPS-based asset tracking systems that allow for not only monitoring but also remotely controlling an entity's functions based on its location relative to pre-configured geographical boundaries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff asserts it is a non-practicing entity and argues that these prior licenses do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), in part because the licensees did not admit infringement or agree to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 - “Method and System to Control Movable Entities”, issued January 29, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that at the time of invention, vehicle tracking systems were largely limited to relaying GPS information to a control center for passive monitoring on a map, and that the full potential benefits of such systems had not been maximized (ʼ982 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for more active control. It involves loading geographic coordinates into a transponder attached to a movable entity (e.g., a vehicle). A microprocessor in the transponder uses these coordinates to define a "geographical zone" (e.g., by creating a shape on a pixilated image) and is programmed to determine when an "event" occurs related to the entity's status within that zone. Upon detecting such an event, the microprocessor executes a pre-configured, tangible operation, such as regulating engine temperature or locking a door (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-6, col. 2:40-46).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for automated, location-aware control of remote assets, enabling more sophisticated fleet management, security, and safety protocols beyond simple location tracking (’982 Patent, col. 1:35-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-61, with a focus on exemplary claim 1 (Compl. ¶16, 21).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following primary elements:
  • loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates;
  • programming a microprocessor of a transponder to define a geographical zone by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates;
  • programming the microprocessor in the transponder to determine the occurrence of an event associated with a status of the entity in relation to the geographical zone; and
  • configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers generally to "Defendant's Accused Products" and "systems, products, and services in the field of indoor mapping and control" (Compl. ¶16, 21). No specific product names are provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of indoor mapping and control" that infringe the ’982 patent (Compl. ¶21). The functionality is broadly described as infringing one or more claims of the ’982 patent, with the allegation that Defendant has "put the inventions claimed by the ’982 Patent into service" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B purporting to show how an exemplary claim is infringed (Compl. ¶21). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative, and no claim chart table can be constructed.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products and services for "indoor mapping and control" practice the patented method (Compl. ¶21). This suggests Plaintiff's infringement theory is that Defendant's systems involve defining specific zones within an indoor environment, tracking assets or entities within those zones, and triggering certain system actions or operations based on an entity's location or status relative to those zones. The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "geographical zone", as described in a patent focused on outdoor vehicles and GPS coordinates, can be interpreted to read on the "indoor mapping" systems allegedly offered by the Defendant (Compl. ¶21; ’982 Patent, col. 1:29-34). The defense may argue that the patent's context limits the claims to outdoor, GPS-based applications, while the Plaintiff may argue for a broader construction.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused products perform the "programming" and "configuring" steps of the claims. A key factual dispute will likely be whether Defendant's systems merely report location data to a central server that makes decisions, or whether the mobile transponders themselves are locally "programmed" and "configured" to autonomously "execute a configurable operation" as required by the claim language (’982 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "geographical zone"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement allegation targets "indoor mapping and control" systems (Compl. ¶21), whereas the patent's examples focus on outdoor vehicle tracking using GPS (’982 Patent, col. 1:29-48). The construction of this term will likely determine if the patent's scope can extend from outdoor vehicle routes to indoor facility maps.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the term to "outdoor" or "GPS-based" zones. The patent also discusses defining a zone by creating an "enclosed area on a pixilated image" using coordinates, a concept that could arguably apply to indoor floor plans (’982 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly frames the invention in the context of "vehicle tracking systems," "GPS technology," and defining zones by waypoints with a radius, which are concepts traditionally associated with outdoor navigation (’982 Patent, col. 1:24-34; col. 13:60-65).

• The Term: "entity"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term to determine the types of tracked objects the patent covers. While the complaint is not specific, Zebra Technologies is known for enterprise asset intelligence, which can include tracking inventory, equipment, and personnel indoors. The applicability of the patent to these targets depends on the scope of "entity".
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "entity" without qualification. The specification states that entities "may include vehicles, aircraft, cargo, persons, animals, or any other item where tracking its movement and/or location is beneficial" (’982 Patent, col. 6:35-39). This broad definition could support application to a wide range of indoor assets.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The vast majority of examples and embodiments throughout the detailed description relate specifically to vehicles, such as cars, and their associated components like ignitions and doors (’982 Patent, Fig. 1A; col. 2:40-46). A party could argue these examples limit the term's effective scope to vehicles or similar complex transports.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products and services to infringe (Compl. ¶22). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on instructions on Defendant's website and in product manuals, and the assertion that the products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶23).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads willfulness based on knowledge of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶22, 23). Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint to allege pre-suit knowledge if it is discovered (Compl. ¶22, fn. 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 is described in the patent primarily in the context of outdoor vehicle navigation using GPS, be construed to cover the "indoor mapping" environments of the accused systems? The outcome of this construction may be dispositive for infringement.
2. A second central question will be one of locus of control: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations demonstrating that the accused systems perform the claimed "programming" and "configuring" steps on the local microprocessor of a mobile unit. The case may turn on whether the accused systems perform these intelligent, decision-making steps locally on the transponder, as the claims appear to require, or remotely at a central server, which could present a significant mismatch with the claimed invention.