Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Verizon

Wirelesswerx IP LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) associated with Dynamic IP Deals LLC (DynaIP), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Verizon, a major telecommunications operating company.. Wirelesswerx IP, which does not sell products, focuses on asserting its intellectual property rights.. The lawsuit specifically targeted US Patent 7,323,982, titled "Method and System to Control Movable Entities.". This patent broadly covers systems and methods for the remote control and monitoring of functions and positioning data of mobile entities in relation to pre-configured geographical zones, often employing transponders and GPS technology..

The accused products or services in the litigation involve Verizon's technology related to geofencing techniques, location tracking, and the management of wireless devices.. The case, initially filed under case number 2:24-cv-00163 in the Eastern District of Texas, highlights the historical preference of patent plaintiffs for this venue, known for its "rocket docket" and perceived plaintiff-friendly procedures, including a historical reluctance to stay litigation pending USPTO reexamination.. However, the case ultimately reached a resolution in the Western District of Texas, where Judge Alan D. Albright entered a final judgment on October 6, 2025, dismissing Wirelesswerx IP's claims against Verizon with prejudice.. This dismissal with prejudice is a significant outcome, permanently barring Wirelesswerx IP from re-filing the same infringement claims against Verizon based on the '982 patent in any federal court..

This litigation is notable due to Wirelesswerx IP's status as a prolific patent assertion entity and its broader litigation campaign. The asserted patent, US 7,323,982, is currently subject to an ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents, which found "substantial new questions of patentability" on the challenged claims.. Furthermore, Unified Patents successfully challenged another Wirelesswerx patent, US 7,317,927, relating to location tracking, with the PTAB confirming the invalidity of all challenged claims in an ex parte reexamination in November 2025.. This pattern of challenged and invalidated patents, combined with the final dismissal of the Verizon case, underscores the ongoing scrutiny and defensive actions faced by NPEs like Wirelesswerx IP in their enforcement efforts.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Verizon, concerning U.S. Patent 7,323,982, has concluded in the Western District of Texas.

Note on Case Identification: The prompt specified the case as 2:24-cv-00163 in the Eastern District of Texas. However, public records consistently indicate that the patent infringement lawsuit brought by Wirelesswerx IP LLC against Verizon concerning U.S. Patent 7,323,982 was filed under case number 7:25-cv-00198 in the Western District of Texas. The information below pertains to the case identified by public records that involves the specified parties and patent. No information was found indicating that U.S. Patent 7,323,982 is at issue in case 2:24-cv-00163 in the Eastern District of Texas.

---

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00198)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• WirelessWerx IP, LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc. on April 25, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982, which relates to methods and systems for controlling movable entities using transponders. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Alan D. Albright.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• The public record does not detail any substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending reexamination.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case concluded before reaching the claim construction (Markman) stage.

Discovery Milestones:

• No significant discovery milestones were publicly reported due to the rapid resolution of the case, which lasted 165 days.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial. No verdict or post-trial motions occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal — Final Disposition:

• On October 6, 2025, Judge Alan D. Albright issued a final order dismissing WirelessWerx IP's cause of action with prejudice.
• A final judgment reflecting this dismissal was entered on October 7, 2025.
• The order stipulated that each party would bear its own costs, and no damages or injunctive relief were publicly disclosed.
• The dismissal "with prejudice" legally signifies a final adjudication on the merits, which permanently bars WirelessWerx IP from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Verizon based on U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 in any future federal court action.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A related ex parte reexamination proceeding concerning U.S. Patent 7,323,982 (Reexamination Number 90/015,402) was initiated by Unified Patents LLC on July 22, 2025. [cite: 1 (Unified Patents), 3 (Unified Patents)]
• The reexamination was instituted on August 25, 2025. [cite: 3 (Unified Patents)]
• A Non-Final Office Action was mailed on March 5, 2026, and the proceeding is currently listed as "Pending - Non-Final OA." [cite: 3 (Unified Patents)] The existence of this reexamination, though a separate administrative proceeding, could have factored into the parties' decision-making leading to the swift dismissal of the district court case.

Outcome: The patent infringement litigation between WirelessWerx IP LLC and Verizon Communications, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (7:25-cv-00198) concluded with a dismissal with prejudice on October 6, 2025, constituting a defendant win for Verizon. No damages were awarded, and each party bore its own costs. A parallel ex parte reexamination of the asserted patent (U.S. Patent 7,323,982) by the USPTO remains ongoing.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Verizon 2:24-cv-00163 plaintiff counsel", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC attorneys of record", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC patent litigation counsel", "S. Todd Neal Wirelesswerx IP LLC", "Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC Wirelesswerx IP LLC", "Jeff Tillotson Wirelesswerx IP LLC", "Mayer LLP Wirelesswerx IP LLC"]))
thought
The user is asking for the plaintiff's counsel in the case Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Verizon, case number 2:24-cv-00163 in the Eastern District of Texas. I need to identify the attorneys, their roles, firms, and relevant experience. I will use web search to find this information, looking for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Based on the previous sections, I know the case is ongoing. I will specifically search for "plaintiff counsel" or "attorneys of record" for Wirelesswerx IP LLC in this specific case. I will also broaden my search to see if Wirelesswerx IP LLC consistently uses certain firms or attorneys in its patent litigation.The plaintiff, Wirelesswerx IP LLC, is represented by counsel from several firms specializing in patent litigation, particularly in Texas. While specific docket entries for case 2:24-cv-00163 were not directly accessible, information from related cases and general practice of Wirelesswerx IP LLC and their frequently used counsel provides strong indications.

Based on available information, the primary counsel for Wirelesswerx IP LLC in patent infringement actions, including those involving US Patent No. 7,323,982, appears to be Ramey LLP. It is also common for patent assertion entities like Wirelesswerx IP LLC to engage experienced local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

Here is the breakdown of likely counsel representing Wirelesswerx IP LLC:

• Ramey LLP

  • Firm: Ramey LLP, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: This firm frequently represents Wirelesswerx IP LLC in patent infringement lawsuits, including a case against AT&T in the Eastern District of Texas involving the same patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982) and a separate case against Verizon in the Western District of Texas also involving the '982 patent. Ramey LLP is a full-service litigation firm with a national client base.
    • William P. Ramey, III
      • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
      • Note: Listed as an attorney for Wirelesswerx IP LLC in an IPR proceeding against Google.
    • Jacob B. Henry
      • Role: Attorney
      • Note: Listed as an attorney for Wirelesswerx IP LLC in an IPR proceeding against Google.

• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry), Longview, Texas.
  • Note: This firm is a prominent East Texas law firm "feared by many of the leading patent litigation firms in the United States" and is well-known for its successful trial litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as local counsel in high-stakes intellectual property trials.
    • Andrea Fair
      • Role: Partner, likely Lead/Trial Counsel
      • Note: Recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, with recent jury verdicts of $847 million and $122 million in patent infringement cases.
    • Johnny Ward
      • Role: Partner (ending trial practice October 1, 2024), experienced in patent litigation.
    • Wesley Hill
      • Role: Partner (ending trial practice October 1, 2024), experienced in patent litigation.
    • Charles Everingham IV
      • Role: Of Counsel, former Eastern District magistrate judge, providing "unique insight into what does and doesn't work in this patent litigation hotspot."
    • T. John Ward
      • Role: Of Counsel, former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, having presided over hundreds of patent cases and numerous claim construction hearings. His litigation practice now focuses on patent and complex commercial cases.
    • Claire Abernathy Henry
      • Role: Partner, represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent litigation in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Tillotson Johnson & Patton PLLC

  • Firm: Tillotson Johnson & Patton PLLC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: This firm is recognized for its litigation capabilities and is known for joining lawsuits "midstream" or as "sophisticated local trial counsel" in complex, high-stakes cases. The firm represents both plaintiffs and defendants, which provides an advantage in litigation strategy.
    • Jeffrey M. Tillotson
      • Role: Lead Counsel
      • Note: Possesses extensive complex litigation and trial experience in multi-party cases across various courts, including the Eastern District of Texas. He has also handled numerous successful appeals.

It is important to note that while these firms and attorneys are highly likely to be involved given Wirelesswerx IP LLC's history and the forum, the exact composition of the legal team for this specific case (2:24-cv-00163) would typically be confirmed via a review of the court's docket for attorney appearances.

Based on the docket entries for Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Verizon, Case No. 7:25-cv-00198, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the following attorneys represented Verizon:

Defendant Counsel for Verizon:

• Name: Deron R. Dacus

  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, Texas.
  • Note: Deron Dacus is a Texas-based attorney frequently appearing as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, known for his experience in federal court litigation.

• Name: Geoffrey Mark Godfrey

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Geoffrey Godfrey is a partner at Dorsey & Whitney and focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, particularly in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret disputes, often representing technology and telecommunications companies.