DCT
2:25-cv-00534
WirelessWerx IP LLC v. Here North America LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WirelessWerx IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Here North America, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00534, D. Utah, 07/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Orem, Utah, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s indoor mapping and control systems and services infringe a patent related to defining and using multi-dimensional geographical zones for location-based messaging.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to location-based services, specifically using three-dimensional coordinates (including elevation) to define virtual zones for tracking and messaging, a key function in modern indoor and outdoor navigation and asset management systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also notes prior confidential settlement licenses with other entities, arguing these do not trigger patent marking requirements because they did not authorize the production of a patented article and were entered into to terminate litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-05 | ’867 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-04-23 | ’867 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-07-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,428,867 - “Configuring and Using Multi-Dimensional Zones,” issued April 23, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies limitations in existing tracking systems, noting that conventional GPS is often limited to two-dimensional (latitude/longitude) positioning and that systems for locating devices indoors may not provide a precise location, particularly within complex, multi-story structures (’867 Patent, col. 1:32-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for defining three-dimensional geographical zones by using one or more "waypoints." Each waypoint is defined by a geographical coordinate—including latitude, longitude, and elevation—and a radius (’867 Patent, Abstract). A transponder on a mobile entity can then determine its position relative to these 3D zones and trigger communications or other actions, such as receiving targeted messages based on its specific location within the zone (’867 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:15). This allows for creating complex, irregular zones for precise monitoring and control (’867 Patent, col. 8:51-58).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for more granular, three-dimensional geo-fencing that includes an elevation component, enabling more sophisticated location-based control and messaging in environments where vertical position is critical, such as multi-story buildings or campuses (’867 Patent, col. 3:21-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-21 (’Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- Allowing a user to enter at least one "waypoint" defined by a 3D geographical coordinate (latitude, longitude, elevation) and a radius.
- Loading the waypoint onto a transponder.
- Receiving, over the internet, location information derived from a GPS receiver on the transponder, which is enabled to operate based on its 3D location.
- Using the location information in a programmed computer that is in communication with stored messages.
- Automatically sending a targeted message to the transponder based on its 3D location, particularly for commercial communications (e.g., advertisements or promotions) when the user is in a specific area like a shopping mall or hotel.
- Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (’Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "Accused Products," further described as "systems, products, and services in the field of indoor mapping and control" (’Compl. ¶¶15, 20). The complaint points generally to Defendant's products and solutions available via its website (’Compl. ¶¶21-22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems for indoor mapping and control (’Compl. ¶20). The specific technical operations of these systems are not detailed, but the allegations frame them as infringing the claimed methods for using defined geographical zones (’Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (’Compl. ¶20). The infringement theory is therefore based on the general allegations within the complaint's body.
’867 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| allowing a user to enter at least one waypoint, wherein the at least one waypoint is defined by a geographical coordinate and a radius, wherein the geographical coordinate is represented by a latitude value, a longitude value, and an elevation value... | Defendant’s indoor mapping and control systems allegedly allow for the definition of geographical zones. | ¶¶15, 20 | col. 41:11-20 |
| loading the at least one waypoint on the at least one transponder; | Defendant’s systems allegedly use the defined zones to operate their mapping and control services. | ¶¶15, 20 | col. 41:20-21 |
| receiving over the internet, from the transponder, the transponder being enabled to operate based on a location of the device in a 3-D space environment, the geographical coordinate being location information derived from the GPS receiver... | Defendant’s systems allegedly operate using location data from user devices within a 3D environment. | ¶¶15, 20 | col. 41:22-28 |
| using the location information and the identifying information in a programmed computer in communication with stored messages; | Defendant’s systems allegedly use location information to provide its services. | ¶¶15, 20 | col. 41:29-31 |
| thereupon, under the control of a programmed computer and without specific request by the individual, sending to the transponder...a message...wherein at least one of an advertisement, promotion or suggestion that relates to that specific area of the shopping mall or hotel is downloaded to the transponder for the user. | Defendant’s systems for indoor mapping and control are alleged to practice the claimed methods of the patent. | ¶¶15, 20 | col. 41:32-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether Defendant’s accused systems perform the specific, complete method of claim 1. The complaint does not provide specific evidence that Defendant’s services execute the final step of the claim: automatically sending a targeted commercial message (e.g., an advertisement) to a user's device based on its 3D location within a venue like a shopping mall or hotel. The analysis will depend on whether Defendant's general "indoor mapping and control" functions can be shown to meet this specific limitation.
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 is a method claim. The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant (’Compl. ¶15). This raises the question of whether Defendant itself performs every step of the claimed method. If some steps are performed by the end-user (e.g., moving through a location) while others are performed by Defendant's servers, it may introduce a defense of divided infringement, which typically requires a showing that one party directs or controls the other's performance of the method steps.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "waypoint"
- Context and Importance: This term is the fundamental building block of the claimed "geographical zone." Claim 1 defines it as "a geographical coordinate [latitude, longitude, and elevation] and a radius." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the method by which Defendant's systems define a location or geofence falls within this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes zones more broadly as potentially being irregular regions defined by a series of line segments, suggesting that a "waypoint" could be a component of a more complex, non-circular shape (’867 Patent, col. 8:51-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit definition in claim 1 and the abstract, which describes a waypoint by its "geographical coordinate and a radius," could be argued to limit the term to a simple circular or spherical area defined by a center point and a distance (’867 Patent, Abstract; col. 41:13-17).
The Term: "under the control of a programmed computer and without specific request by the individual, sending...a message"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is critical because it defines the automated and responsive nature of the claimed method, distinguishing it from a system that merely provides mapping data upon a user's request. Infringement will depend on whether Defendant's system is shown to automatically push targeted messages based on a location trigger, as required by the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this language covers any automated system response triggered by a user's location, not just commercial advertisements.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language immediately following this phrase specifies that "commercial communications are performed" and provides examples of an "advertisement, promotion or suggestion" related to a "shopping mall or a hotel" (’867 Patent, col. 41:40-49). This context may support a narrower construction limited to automated, location-based commercial messaging.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by actively encouraging or instructing its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (’Compl. ¶21). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Defendant’s products are not staple articles of commerce and their "only reasonable use is an infringing use" (’Compl. ¶22).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’867 patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (’Compl. ¶¶21-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does the evidence show that Defendant's accused indoor mapping systems perform the complete, multi-step method recited in Claim 1? In particular, the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove the accused systems execute the final element, which requires the autonomous transmission of a targeted commercial message to a user's device based on their specific 3D location within a venue such as a mall or hotel.
- A key legal question will be one of direct infringement: as Claim 1 is a method claim, can Plaintiff establish that Defendant itself performs every step of the claimed method? The complaint's theory of direct infringement may be challenged if the operation of the accused system relies on actions performed by both Defendant's servers and the end-user, raising potential issues of divided infringement.