DCT

7:25-cv-00198

WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00198, W.D. Tex., 08/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas and committing acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Care Smart products, which provide location monitoring and alert services, infringe a patent related to methods and systems for controlling movable entities via transponders and predefined geographical zones.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves "geofencing," where a device's location is monitored relative to a virtual boundary, triggering a predefined action upon entry or exit. This technology is significant in markets for fleet management, asset tracking, and personal safety monitoring.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff argues that because these licenses did not concede infringement or require the production of a patented article, the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) are not applicable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-11-05 ’982 Patent Priority Date
2008-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 Issued
2025-08-19 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982, Method and System to Control Movable Entities (January 29, 2008)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes existing GPS tracking systems as being limited to relaying location information to a control center for plotting on a map, stating that their benefits are "yet to be maximized" (’982 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more active control system. It discloses a method where a transponder attached to a movable entity is loaded with coordinates defining a geographical zone. A microprocessor within the transponder is programmed to create a zone representation on a "pixilated image" and then monitor the entity's status relative to that zone (’982 Patent, Abstract). Upon detecting an "event" (e.g., crossing the zone boundary), the microprocessor is configured to execute a "configurable operation" (e.g., turning off an ignition, locking a door, turning on an alarm) (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-49).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed solution shifts functionality from a passive, centralized monitoring system to an autonomous, on-device system capable of executing pre-programmed control actions based on real-time location data, enabling automated remote control. (’982 Patent, col. 1:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-61 (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Loading a plurality of coordinates from a computing device to a transponder's memory.
    • Programming the transponder's microprocessor to define a geographical zone by creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image using the coordinates.
    • Programming the microprocessor to determine the occurrence of an event associated with the entity's status relative to the geographical zone.
    • Configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a blanket assertion of claims 1-61.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Verizon's Care Smart products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers a system with methods and user interface for controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶18). The product name "Care Smart" suggests a system for monitoring the location and safety of individuals, such as children or elderly family members. The complaint alleges that Verizon encourages and instructs customers on how to use these products and services to "control an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused products' geofencing or alert features.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not provided with the pleading (Compl. ¶19). Accordingly, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Verizon's Care Smart system, when used as intended by customers, practices the method claimed in the ’982 Patent. The complaint alleges that users of the Care Smart products define geographical zones and configure the system to take action when the person or object being tracked (the "entity") crosses a zone boundary. This alleged functionality is asserted to map onto the patent's claims for defining a geographical zone and executing an operation based on a location-based event (Compl. ¶17-18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's general allegations raise the question of whether the method used by the Care Smart system to define a geographical zone meets the claim limitation of "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image." A dispute may arise over whether Verizon's system uses the specific pixel-mapping technique described in the patent or an alternative method, such as defining a zone by a center point and radius.
    • Technical Questions: A key question is what specific "configurable operation" the accused Care Smart products execute. Does the system’s primary function—sending a notification or alert to a caregiver's phone—constitute an "operation" on the tracked "entity" itself, as described by patent examples like "turning off the ignition" or "locking a door"? The analysis may hinge on whether an external notification is considered equivalent to a direct action performed on or by the transponder-equipped entity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates" (from Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical mechanism for how a geographical zone is defined within the transponder. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will likely depend heavily on whether the accused system's method of defining a geofence can be characterized as creating an area on a "pixilated image" in the manner claimed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any graphical representation of a zone on a digital map is inherently a "pixilated image," and thus any method that uses coordinates to draw a boundary on a screen would meet this limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment, describing a process of defining a "bounding' square or box," pixilating it, activating the specific pixels where coordinates fall, and then forming a "contiguous line of pixels" between them to create the zone boundary (’982 Patent, col. 15:21-30, Fig. 5A). This could support a narrower construction limited to this specific pixel-activation and line-drawing algorithm.
  • The Term: "configurable operation" (from Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the action taken in response to a geofencing event. Whether the primary output of the accused Care Smart products (e.g., an alert sent to a third party) qualifies as a "configurable operation" under the patent will be a central issue.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad, and a party could argue it encompasses any user-configured action triggered by an event, including the transmission of a notification message from the device.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a list of exemplary operations, all of which involve a direct, physical change to the state of the entity or its components, such as "turning on an ignition... turning off the ignition... locking a door or latch... opening a window... turning on an alarm" (’982 Patent, col. 2:40-49). This list may support a narrower construction requiring a direct change in the physical or operational state of the tracked entity itself, rather than merely transmitting data to an external system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Verizon "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Verizon provides instruction manuals and online support that detail the infringing use, and that the products are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the ’982 Patent and its infringement "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶20-21). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willfulness if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 8, ¶e).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the method by which the accused Verizon Care Smart products define a geofence correspond to the specific process of "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image" as required by Claim 1 and detailed in the patent’s specification, or does it utilize a fundamentally different algorithm?
  • A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "configurable operation," which the patent illustrates with examples of direct physical actions on a vehicle (e.g., ignition cutoff, door locking), be construed to cover the primary function of the accused products, which may be sending a location-based alert to a third-party device?