WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Ez Web Entertainment Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: EZ Web Enterprises, Inc. (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00220, W.D. Tex., 05/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s asset tracking products and services infringe a patent related to controlling movable entities using pre-defined geographical zones, commonly known as geofencing.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to systems where a device attached to a mobile asset can locally determine its position relative to a virtual boundary and autonomously trigger a pre-configured action, a foundational capability in modern logistics and asset management.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint preemptively addresses potential patent marking defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 287 by arguing that prior settlement licenses with other entities did not create a marking obligation.

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’s background section notes that contemporary GPS tracking systems were often limited to passively relaying location information to a central server for monitoring, lacking robust, autonomous control capabilities at the local device level (’982 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a transponder for a movable entity that possesses local intelligence. The system allows a user to pre-load the transponder with coordinates defining a geographical zone. The transponder’s own microprocessor can then autonomously determine when an "event" occurs—such as the entity crossing the zone boundary—and execute a "configurable operation" without needing continuous instruction from a central server (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4).
• Technical Importance: This architecture enabled more responsive, reliable, and cost-effective control over mobile assets by distributing decision-making from a centralized server to the end device, thereby reducing communication latency and data transmission costs (’982 Patent, col. 1:36-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶18).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A method to wirelessly control an entity having an attached transponder, comprising:
  • loading from a computing device to a transponder's memory a plurality of coordinates;
  • programming a microprocessor of the 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.
• The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-61, thereby reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are identified generally as "Defendant's products (e.g. EZO Website)" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint characterizes the accused products as a "system with methods and user interface for controlling an entity having an attached transponder" (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the accused products' operation. The allegations frame the products as asset tracking and management systems that provide functionality for controlling assets equipped with transponders (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶19). The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the complaint's body.

’982 Patent Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the method used by the accused products to define a geographical zone constitutes "creating an enclosed area on a pixilated image" as required by Claim 1. The patent’s specification describes a specific pixel-based grid method (’982 Patent, col. 15:52-61), raising the question of whether this language covers other common methods for defining geofences, such as those using vector-based polygons.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that Defendant's system performs the claimed programming and configuration steps. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused transponders are actually "programmed" in the claimed manner, rather than, for example, simply reporting raw location data to a central server that performs the geofence logic and determines when an event has occurred.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "pixilated image"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical, as it appears to define the specific technical mechanism for creating a geofence. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will turn on whether the accused system's technology for defining zones falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern asset tracking systems often use vector graphics rather than the raster-based pixel maps explicitly described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be understood more broadly to mean any digital representation of a geographical area, pointing to the general description of the invention as a system using "preconfigured geographical zones" (’982 Patent, col. 1:56-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly detailed description of creating a zone by first drawing a square around it, dividing that square into an "80/80-pixel map," and then activating the pixels that form the zone's outline, which may support a narrower construction limited to this specific grid-based method (’982 Patent, col. 15:52-61; Fig. 5A).

The Term: "programming a microprocessor"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in two separate limitations of Claim 1 and is central to the patent’s concept of a locally intelligent transponder. The dispute may focus on whether a user configuring high-level settings through a software interface constitutes "programming" the device's microprocessor, or if the term requires a more fundamental alteration of the device's executable code.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent depicts a "Configuration Utility" with graphical user interface elements like tabs and checkboxes that allow a user to set event parameters, which could be characterized as a form of "programming" in the context of the invention (’982 Patent, Figs. 4A-4G; col. 12:1-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent distinguishes between high-level configuration and true "programming" by separately discussing "over-the-air operating system updates" and "re-programming the unit's core program," suggesting "programming" implies modifying executable code, not just parameters (’982 Patent, col. 11:37-39; col. 12:10-14).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant actively encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Defendant provides its products and services with instructions (e.g., via website and manuals) for an infringing use, and that the products are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of the ’982 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," establishing a basis for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶20-21). The prayer for relief also requests a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery reveal that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical definition: can the claim term "pixilated image," which the patent specification illustrates with a specific 80x80 grid-based map, be construed broadly enough to encompass the geofence definition methods used in modern asset tracking systems, which may rely on different technologies like vector-based polygons?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural proof: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused system performs the geofence logic on the microprocessor of the local transponder, as required by the claims, versus an alternative architecture where the transponder merely reports location data to a central server that determines when a geofence event has occurred?