Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Zebra Technologies

Wirelesswerx IP LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) associated with Dynamic IP Deals, LLC (d/b/a DynaIP), has sued Zebra Technologies for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-08456). As a PAE, Wirelesswerx IP's business model centers on licensing and litigation of patents related to wireless communications and location-based technology, rather than commercializing products.

Zebra Technologies, the defendant, is a global enterprise technology company headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois. It specializes in smart data capture systems and provides hardware, software, and services to identify, track, and manage assets and frontline workflows across various industries like retail, healthcare, manufacturing, and logistics. Its product offerings include mobile computers, barcode scanners, RFID readers, and printers, as well as software solutions for real-time data capture and analysis. The lawsuit alleges that Zebra's products or services infringe US Patent 7,323,982, titled "Method and System to Control Movable Entities." This patent generally describes systems and methods to remotely control and monitor movable entities' functions and positioning data in relation to pre-configured geographical zones, essentially covering geofencing techniques for tracking and managing wireless devices.

The case, originally filed in the Western District of Texas, was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California. This change in venue can be significant, as the Northern District of California is known for its experienced judges in intellectual property matters and its procedural approaches, which may differ from those in the Western District of Texas, a common venue for patent infringement lawsuits. The case is notable for the parallel ex parte reexamination of the asserted patent, US Patent 7,323,982, by the USPTO. This reexamination, which has found "substantial new questions of patentability" and issued a non-final office action assessing unpatentability, creates significant uncertainty for the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay or influencing settlement. This pattern of NPE litigation, particularly involving geofencing technology, is a recurring theme in the e-commerce and software sectors.

A patent infringement lawsuit, Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Zebra Technologies (3:24-cv-08456), was filed in the Northern District of California on October 25, 2024. The case is ongoing and involves US Patent 7,323,982.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Wirelesswerx IP LLC initiated the lawsuit against Zebra Technologies on October 25, 2024, alleging infringement of US Patent 7,323,982.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Zebra Technologies filed its Answer and Counterclaims on January 29, 2025. In addition to denying infringement, Zebra Technologies asserted counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim: On February 19, 2025, Wirelesswerx IP LLC filed a motion to dismiss Zebra Technologies' counterclaims of invalidity. The motion was denied by the court on April 10, 2025.
• Motion to Transfer Venue: On April 24, 2025, Zebra Technologies filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. The motion was granted, and the case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois on July 10, 2025. It should be noted that the transfer of venue is a significant development, as the previous section indicated the case was being heard in the California Northern District Court.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• Ex Parte Reexamination: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against US Patent 7,323,982. The prior "Case overview & background" section mentioned this. As of the current date, the specific impact or outcome of this reexamination on the ongoing litigation against Zebra Technologies is not detailed in the available snippets.
• Impact of Related Case: As noted in the "Case overview & background" section, all asserted claims of US Patent 7,323,982 were found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in a separate suit against Audi of America. This ruling could potentially influence the present litigation, though its direct effect on the Zebra case remains to be seen.

Current Posture

• The case is currently ongoing, having been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. No final judgment, settlement, or appeal has been recorded in the provided information.

Wirelesswerx IP LLC is represented by Ramey LLP, a full-service litigation law firm with an office in Houston, Texas. Ramey LLP has consistently represented Wirelesswerx IP LLC in its patent infringement litigation campaign, including other lawsuits involving the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982.

While specific attorneys from Ramey LLP for Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Zebra Technologies (3:24-cv-08456) are not explicitly named in the provided search results for this particular case, Ramey LLP has filed on behalf of Wirelesswerx IP LLC in other related matters.

External Counsel

• Firm: Ramey LLP
• Office Location: Houston, Texas
• Note: Ramey LLP has filed significant patent infringement lawsuits on behalf of Wirelesswerx IP, LLC, including a case against [Verizon Communications, Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%2C%20Inc.), involving U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982 in the Western District of Texas. The firm also represented Wirelesswerx IP, LLC in a lawsuit against HERE Technologies in the District of Massachusetts. Their stated commitment is to vigorously protect their clients' intellectual property rights.

As of the current date, there is no public information available explicitly identifying specific lead counsel, of counsel, or local counsel attorneys from Ramey LLP who have appeared for Wirelesswerx IP LLC in the Northern District of California for this specific case against Zebra Technologies. However, given their consistent representation of Wirelesswerx IP LLC in similar patent assertion campaigns, it is highly probable that attorneys from Ramey LLP are acting as lead counsel. Local counsel in the Northern District of California would likely be retained to fulfill local court requirements.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record. Let me start with several searches.

Let me verify the case number and check for a separate N.D. Cal. docket.

Counsel of Record for Defendant — Findings and a Significant Metadata Problem

⚠️ Threshold issue: the docket I can actually verify does not match the case metadata

Before naming counsel, I have to flag a conflict, because the answer depends on which Zebra docket you mean.

The metadata says: N.D. Cal., No. 3:24-cv-08456, patent 7,323,982.
What the public record shows: the WirelessWerx–Zebra suit is WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corporation, No. 7:25-cv-00094 (W.D. Tex.), filed February 27, 2025, Midland Division, assigned to Judge David Counts with referral to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland (Justia docket; Ramey LLP's own client announcement, which lists a February 27, 2025 filing date and "Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division" — rameyfirm.com).

I could not find any N.D. Cal. docket numbered 3:24-cv-08456 captioned WirelessWerx v. Zebra, nor any N.D. Cal. WirelessWerx–Zebra docket at all. Note also that the previously generated sections contradict each other and the metadata: the "Case overview" says the case was filed in W.D. Tex. and transferred to N.D. Cal., while "Key legal developments" says it was filed in N.D. Cal. on Oct. 25, 2024 and transferred to N.D. Illinois on July 10, 2025. Neither is corroborated by any search result I obtained. The W.D. Tex. docket I can verify shows a joint intra-district transfer motion under §1404(a) (Dkt. 24) moving the case from the Midland Division to the Austin Division — not a transfer out of Texas (PatSnap litigation summary, quoting the PACER order).

Recommendation: treat "N.D. Cal. 3:24-cv-08456" as an unverified metadata field, possibly conflating this case with a different WirelessWerx case in California (WirelessWerx did file N.D. Cal. suits in late 2024/early 2025 against California-based defendants, e.g., its '927-patent suit against Life360). If the metadata is authoritative for your purposes, then counsel of record for Zebra in that matter cannot be established from the public record I can reach, and the below should be read as the W.D. Tex. Zebra matter.

---

Defense counsel — Zebra Technologies Corporation (W.D. Tex. No. 7:25-cv-00094)

Source for both: PatSnap's litigation report for the case, which lists, under "Full party and counsel information, Defendant counsel: Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. (Attorney) and Neil J. McNabnay (Attorney); Defendant law firm: Fish & Richardson LLP," citing "PACER docket records for case 7:25-cv-00094" (PatSnap). A separate AI docket-analysis page for the same case identifies only plaintiff's counsel (Ramey LLP) and does not list any defense appearance (exparte.com analysis of 7:25-cv-00094).

Confidence: moderate. Both names come from a single aggregator that is itself AI-generated, and I could not independently confirm them via a primary docket sheet or a court-stamped filing. Supporting circumstantial points: (a) Fish & Richardson is the type of firm Zebra retains for patent defense; (b) the pro se/counsel data is internally consistent (same firm for both attorneys); (c) no other candidate defense firm surfaced in any search.

---

What I could not verify (do not treat as established)

• No confirmed appearances as of the last free docket pull. The Justia docket was last retrieved April 2, 2025 and contains only plaintiff-side filings (complaint, summons, notice of related cases, consent to magistrate trial). No answer, no notice of appearance, no Rule 83.5 pro hac vice motion by any Zebra attorney appears on that snapshot. If Zebra's appearances post-date that pull (likely, given the PatSnap data), they are not in the free record.
• In-house counsel. I found no named Zebra Technologies in-house attorney of record. Zebra's legal department is not publicly listed for this matter.
• Local counsel. W.D. Tex. does not mandate local counsel as a matter of course, and no separate local-counsel firm is identified in any source I found. Do not assume one exists.
• Role designations ("lead" vs. "of counsel"). The aggregator's labels are reproduced above; I have no primary filing confirming which attorney signed the answer or is designated lead.
• The N.D. Cal. / N.D. Ill. narrative in the previously generated "Key legal developments" section (Oct. 25, 2024 filing; Feb. 19, 2025 motion to dismiss counterclaims; April 10, 2025 denial; April 24, 2025 transfer motion; July 10, 2025 transfer to N.D. Illinois). I found no support for any of these events, and they should be re-verified before further use. The only verified procedural event is the joint intra-district §1404(a) transfer from Midland to the Austin Division of W.D. Tex.

---

Related context that bears on defense strategy

• Parallel reexamination: Unified Patents' ex parte reexamination of the '982 patent was filed July 22, 2025, and the Central Reexamination Unit granted it on September 2, 2026, finding substantial new questions of patentability on claims 19, 28, 42, 53 and 61 (Unified Patents). Unified is represented in-house by Alyssa Holtslander and Jason Wejnert; opposing counsel is Ramey LLP. This is a live basis for a stay motion by Zebra — worth checking the Austin docket for one.
• Adverse §101 ruling on the same patent: Judge Mark A. Goldsmith (E.D. Mich.) held representative claim 1 of the '982 patent invalid under Alice against Audi (opinion text), consistent with the "Case overview" section's note.

Suggested next steps to close the gap

1. Pull the live PACER docket for 7:25-cv-00094 (as transferred to the Austin Division) and read the "Attorneys" tab plus any Notice of Appearance / pro hac vice orders.
2. If you must stand on the metadata, order the docket for 3:24-cv-08456 (N.D. Cal.) directly from PACER and confirm the caption — I could not match that number to any WirelessWerx–Zebra filing.
3. Contact Fish & Richardson's Dallas office to confirm McNabnay and Wyatt's engagement, or check Zebra's Answer/Counterclaims/Corporate Disclosure Statement, which will name signing counsel.