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.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and any additional plaintiff counsel, plus check the EDTX case number referenced in the metadata.

Key finding: EDTX 2:24-cv-00163 appears to be WirelessWerx v. DroneUp, not Verizon. Let me verify and pull the plaintiff's signature blocks/appearances in the Verizon case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

Bottom line

Only one attorney is recorded on the docket as representing the plaintiff in the Verizon matter: William P. Ramey, III of Ramey LLP (Houston, Texas). He signed the complaint and every other plaintiff-side filing, and no additional plaintiff counsel (lead, of counsel, or local) appears in the publicly retrieved docket. The case resolved before any pro hac vice or local-counsel issue needed to be litigated.

Counsel table

Supporting docket detail (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00198)

• Dkt. 1 (Complaint, filed 4/25/2025) — signed/filed by "Ramey, William"; the docket entry lists plaintiff's representation as "William P. Ramey, III." (Justia docket)
• Dkt. 2–5 (AO 120 form, summons request, interested-parties certificate, notice of related cases) — all filed by "Ramey, William."
• Dkt. 8 (Summons Returned Executed, 5/16/2025) — filed by "(Ramey, William)."
• Defense-side appearances (Dkt. 9–10) came from Deron R. Dacus (The Dacus Firm) and, per the prior section, Geoffrey M. Godfrey (Dorsey & Whitney).
• Third-party aggregators independently list the plaintiff's counsel as "Ramey LLP" / "William P. Ramey, III." (UniCourt case page; Ex Parte AI complaint analysis)

Ramey LLP's own press release confirms it filed the Verizon complaint on behalf of WirelessWerx IP on April 25, 2025 in the W.D. Tex., Midland/Odessa Division. (rameyfirm.com)

Conflict with the case metadata — flagged

The prompt's case identifier (EDTX 2:24-cv-00163) does not match a Verizon case. Public records show E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00163 is WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. DroneUp, LLC (Judge Rodney Gilstrap; filed 3/8/2024; dismissed with prejudice 8/20/2024) — same plaintiff, same '982 patent, but a different defendant. (Docket Alarm; Patsnap case record) This is consistent with the identification already made in the previously generated sections, which located the Verizon action at W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00198. Plaintiff's counsel is the same in both cases (Ramey LLP), so the counsel answer does not change — but the caption/court in the case metadata should be treated as erroneous.

Caveats and unverified items

• Docket completeness: The publicly retrieved docket for 7:25-cv-00198 was last pulled May 16, 2025, and the case was dismissed ~October 6, 2025. I could not retrieve the full mid-2025 docket. It is therefore possible that additional plaintiff-side counsel (e.g., a W.D. Tex. local counsel or a pro hac vice admission) appeared after May 16, 2025 — but I found no evidence of any such appearance, and the case terminated in 165 days without a claim construction or discovery phase, making a later appearance unlikely.
• No local counsel identified for plaintiff in the Verizon case. I found no record of a W.D. Tex. local-counsel appearance for WirelessWerx in this matter.
• Note on lead counsel's disciplinary history (sourced, different case/court): In WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Tracki Inc. (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00799-CFC), Ramey's pro hac vice declaration (Oct. 22, 2025) disclosed that a California magistrate judge censured and held him in contempt on March 26, 2025, that he appealed to the Federal Circuit, and that the District of Colorado changed his admission status to ineligible as a result. (Declaration, CourtListener RECAP) This is not an event in the Verizon case and had no bearing on the Verizon docket, but it is relevant background on plaintiff's lead counsel.
• In-house counsel: None identified for WirelessWerx IP (an NPE with no in-house litigation staff appearing on the docket).

Sources

• Justia docket, WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00198 (W.D. Tex.)
• UniCourt case summary (plaintiff attorney: William P. Ramey, III)
• Ramey LLP press release, "WIRELESSWERX IP Initiates Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Verizon Communications"
• CourtListener RECAP, D. Del. 1:25-cv-00799 (Ramey declaration; Garibian Law Offices letter)
• Patsnap litigation record for E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00163 (WirelessWerx v. DroneUp)

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.