DCT
7:25-cv-00565
WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Ez Web Enterprises Inc
Key Events
Complaint
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-00565, W.D. Tex., 12/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has "regular and established places of business throughout this District" and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for wireless control systems infringe a patent related to controlling movable entities using defined geographical zones.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves geofencing, where a virtual perimeter is established for a real-world geographical area, enabling software to trigger a response when a device enters or leaves that area.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior litigation and argues these licenses did not create a marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because the settling parties did not admit infringement or agree to produce a patented article.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037 Priority Date |
| 2011-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037 Issues |
| 2025-12-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037 - Method and System to Control Movable Entities
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,009,037, “Method and System to Control Movable Entities,” issued August 30, 2011 (’037 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art GPS vehicle tracking systems as being limited to relaying GPS information to a control center and plotting the vehicle's position on a map, which fails to maximize the potential benefits of such technology (ʼ037 Patent, col. 1:45-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method and system where a transponder attached to a movable entity (e.g., a vehicle) is loaded with predefined geographical zones, such as waypoints. A microprocessor within the transponder is programmed to detect an event (e.g., the entity entering or leaving a zone) and, in response, automatically execute a "configurable operation" on the entity itself, such as turning the ignition on or off, locking a door, or turning on an alarm (ʼ037 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-44). This allows for autonomous, location-aware control of the entity, rather than just passive tracking.
- Technical Importance: This approach enables automated, location-based remote control of assets, which can be used to increase fleet efficiency, reduce operating costs, and enhance security beyond what simple monitoring systems provide (ʼ037 Patent, col. 1:33-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-65, with a specific focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶14, 17).
- Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
- defining a geographical zone using a plurality of waypoints, wherein each waypoint is defined by a geographical coordinate and a radius originating from the geographical coordinate;
- loading from a computing device to the transponder's memory a plurality of waypoints;
- programming a microprocessor in the transponder to determine the occurrence of an event associated with the 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Accused Products and Services" developed, sold, and offered for sale by Defendant EZ Web Enterprises, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶3, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities are "systems, products, and services" that allow for the wireless control of systems (Compl. ¶17, 19). It cites Defendant’s website in connection with its business activities and alleges that Defendant offers products "with instruction or advertisement that suggests an infringing use" (Compl. ¶8, ¶19). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused products and services operate. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’037 Patent but does not attach the referenced Exhibit B claim chart (Compl. ¶17). The following table summarizes the infringement theory for claim 1 based on the narrative allegations.
’037 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method to wirelessly control an entity having an attached transponder, comprising: defining a geographical zone using a plurality of waypoints... | Defendant's accused products and services allegedly practice the claimed methods for controlling an entity in a defined geographical zone using waypoints (Compl. ¶7, ¶11). | ¶7, ¶11, ¶14 | col. 3:5-14 |
| loading from a computing device to the transponder's memory a plurality of waypoints | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element but alleges infringement of the claimed methods generally (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 3:9-11 |
| programming a microprocessor in the transponder to determine the occurrence of an event associated with the status of the entity in relation to the geographical zone | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element but alleges infringement of the claimed methods generally (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 3:11-14 |
| and configuring the microprocessor to execute a configurable operation if the event occurs. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element but alleges infringement of the claimed methods generally (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 3:13-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes general allegations that Defendant’s products practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶7, ¶14). A central question will be what evidence exists to show that the accused products perform each specific step of the method claim, particularly the local programming and execution of a "configurable operation" on a microprocessor within a transponder, as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: What is the specific architecture of the accused systems? Do they operate by loading waypoints onto a remote device for local event processing and execution, or do they function primarily by transmitting location data to a central server that determines when a geofence is crossed and then sends a command back to the device? The latter architecture may raise questions about whether the "programming" and "configuring" steps are met as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "waypoint"
Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental building block for creating the "geographical zone." Its precise definition is critical to determining whether the accused system’s method for defining geographic areas falls within the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a definition: "each waypoint is defined by a geographical coordinate and a radius originating from the geographical coordinate" (’037 Patent, col. 3:7-9). This language suggests any circular area defined by a center point and radius could qualify.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes a "waypoint" (a circular area) from a "zone" (an "irregular region defined by a series of line segments enclosing an area") (’037 Patent, col. 7:35-39). A defendant may argue that the term "waypoint" should be limited to its circular definition and not be construed to cover other shapes or methods of defining a geographic point of interest.
The Term: "configurable operation"
Context and Importance: This term defines the action the system takes in response to a geofence event. The scope of this term will be central to the infringement analysis, as it determines what kind of responsive action is covered by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not explicitly defined in the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "configurable operation" could be argued to encompass any action that the system can be programmed to execute, including software-based actions like sending a notification or logging an event.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides numerous concrete examples of "configurable operations," such as "turning on an ignition," "turning off the ignition," "increasing speed," "decreasing speed," "locking a door or latch," and "turning on an alarm" (’037 Patent, col. 2:36-44). A defendant may argue that these examples limit the term to actions that effect a direct physical change on the movable entity itself, rather than purely informational or software-based responses.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant actively encourages infringement by instructing customers "through its website and product instruction manuals" on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18-19). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’037 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which supports a claim for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The prayer for relief also seeks a declaration of pre-suit willful infringement, though the factual allegations in the complaint do not explicitly state a basis for pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 8, ¶e). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is found in discovery (Compl. ¶18, fn. 1).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: What evidence will show that the accused products practice the claimed method steps of locally programming a microprocessor on a transponder and configuring it to autonomously execute an operation, as distinct from a centralized system where a server processes location data and sends commands?
- A key question of claim scope will be the construction of "configurable operation." The resolution of the case may turn on whether this term is interpreted broadly to include software-based alerts and data logging, or narrowly to require an action that directly controls a physical component of the movable entity.