US 7323982

Analysis of U.S. Patent 7,323,982

Title: Method and system to control movable entities

Assignee: The current assignee of record is WirelessWerx IP LLC. The original assignee was Wirelesswerx International Inc.

Inventors: Houston Staton, James Ashley, Sr., James Ashley, Jr., Frank Mooney, Patrick Mooney, Edward Lang, Charles Maggs, and German Santos.

Filing Date: April 13, 2005.

Issue Date: January 29, 2008.

Abstract: The patent describes a method and system for remotely controlling and monitoring movable entities. This is achieved by using pre-configured geographical zones, which can be defined by a series of coordinates or waypoints. A transponder attached to the entity determines its status in relation to these zones and can execute pre-defined actions based on events, such as entering or leaving a zone. The system utilizes a combination of GPS for positioning and wireless communication networks, like cellular or satellite, to transmit data and commands between the entity and a central control system.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for wirelessly controlling a movable entity (like a vehicle) that has a transponder attached to it. The method involves:

• Sending a set of coordinates from a computer to the transponder's memory.
• Using a microprocessor within the transponder to create a "geographical zone" on a digital map (pixilated image) based on these coordinates.
• The microprocessor then determines if a specific "event" has occurred related to the entity's position or status in relation to this zone.
• If the event happens, the microprocessor is programmed to automatically perform a pre-defined action.

Claim 20: This claim describes a similar method, but instead of using a pixilated image, the geographical zone is defined by a series of "waypoints." Each waypoint is a specific geographical coordinate with a defined radius around it. The process is otherwise the same:

• The waypoints are loaded into the transponder's memory.
• The transponder's microprocessor monitors for an event related to the entity and the defined zone.
• If the event occurs, a pre-configured action is executed.

Claim 31: This claim focuses on a different way to define the geographical zone. It involves:

• Using a computer to select a geometric area on a map and dividing it into a grid.
• The user then selects specific sections of this grid to define the desired geographical zone.
• This selection is converted into a pixilated image and loaded onto the transponder.
• The transponder's microprocessor then watches for an event related to this zone and carries out a pre-set operation if the event occurs.

Claim 42: This claim describes a method where the control is initiated from a central control center. The steps are:

• Coordinates defining a geographical zone are loaded onto the transponder.
• The transponder's microprocessor uses these coordinates to create a representation of the zone.
• The microprocessor is programmed to execute a specific action only when it receives a command from the control center. This command is triggered by the entity's status in relation to the defined geographical zone.

Claim 47: This claim is similar to claim 42, but it defines the geographical zone using waypoints (a coordinate and a radius) instead of a pixilated image. The transponder will execute a pre-configured action upon receiving a command from a control center, which is based on the entity's status relative to the waypoint-defined zone.

Claim 48: This claim is also similar to claim 42, but it uses the grid-based method for defining the geographical zone as described in claim 31. A pixilated image of the selected grid sections is loaded onto the transponder, which then acts on commands from a control center based on the entity's interaction with that zone.

Claim 49: This claim describes the system itself for wirelessly controlling a movable entity. The system includes:

• A transponder with a memory and a microprocessor. This microprocessor is set up to perform a specific action when an event occurs related to the entity's movement within a pre-defined geographical zone. The transponder stores the data for this zone.
• A communication modem (like cellular) for the transponder to connect to a network.
• A GPS receiver to provide the transponder with its location.
• A central computer that communicates with the transponder over the network and receives messages when an event occurs.

Claim 55: This claim describes the transponder device itself. Key features of the transponder include:

• A microprocessor and a memory module that stores the geographical zone data.
• The microprocessor is programmed to execute a pre-defined action when a specific event happens related to the entity's movement and the geographical zone.
• It has a communication modem to connect to a network.
• It also has a GPS receiver to get its position.

Litigation Status:

As of April 29, 2026, I am not able to access real-time court dockets. However, publicly available information indicates that U.S. Patent 7,323,982 has been the subject of litigation. For example, WirelessWerx IP LLC has asserted this patent against multiple companies, including Verizon, Zebra Technologies, Audi, Tesla, and Hyundai. There have also been numerous lawsuits filed in various U.S. District Courts, such as the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Texas. Additionally, an ex parte reexamination of the patent was requested by Unified Patents in July 2025, and the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted this request in August 2025, finding "substantial new questions of patentability" for the challenged claims. The patent is currently listed as having an "Expired - Lifetime" status with an expiration date of December 29, 2025.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["US patent 7323982 litigation", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Verizon litigation 7323982", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Zebra Technologies litigation 7323982", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Audi litigation 7323982", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Tesla litigation 7323982", "Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Hyundai litigation 7323982", "2:24-cv-00163 status", "2:25-cv-00225 status", "7:25-cv-00220 status", "7:25-cv-00198 status", "7:25-cv-00094 status", "7:25-cv-00093 status", "3:25-cv-02823 status", "3:25-cv-01026 status", "3:25-cv-00382 status", "3:25-cv-00342 status", "3:25-cv-00341 status", "3:25-cv-00340 status", "2:25-cv-00750 status", "2:25-cv-00241 status", "1:25-cv-00799 status", "2:25-cv-00182 status", "2:24-cv-00044 status", "5:25-cv-00104 status", "1:25-cv-04617 status", "4:25-cv-11147 status", "2:25-cv-11147 status", "1:25-cv-10469 status", "1:25-cv-10391 status", "1:25-cv-00245 status", "2:25-cv-03749 status", "2:25-cv-03471 status", "3:24-cv-08456 status", "3:24-cv-08462 status", "4:24-cv-01040 status", "4:24-cv-08462 status", "5:24-cv-08456 status", "1:24-cv-04709 status", "26-1736 status", "5:24-cv-08462 status", "1:25-cv-00877 status", "6:25-cv-00330 status", "8:25-cv-00386 status", "8:25-cv-02703 status"]))
thought
The user is asking for a list of known litigation involving US patent 7323982. For each case, I need to provide the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome or current status. I should prioritize live web search results over my training data if there's a contradiction.

My previous response mentioned that the patent has been subject to litigation and provided examples of companies involved and jurisdictions. It also mentioned an ex parte reexamination request by Unified Patents.

The Google Patents link provided in the prompt also lists numerous litigation cases. I should cross-reference this with the search results and present the most up-to-date information.

I will iterate through the provided litigation links from Google Patents, performing a search for the case status to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information.

Based on the Google Patents page for US7323982B2, I have the following cases listed with their jurisdictions and case numbers:

• US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court: 2:24-cv-00163
• US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court: 2:25-cv-00225
• US case filed in Texas Western District Court: 7:25-cv-00220
• US case filed in Texas Western District Court: 7:25-cv-00198
• US case filed in Texas Western District Court: 7:25-cv-00094
• US case filed in Texas Western District Court: 7:25-cv-00093
• US case filed in Texas Northern District Court: 3:25-cv-02823
• US case filed in Texas Northern District Court: 3:25-cv-01026
• US case filed in Texas Northern District Court: 3:25-cv-00382
• US case filed in Texas Northern District Court: 3:25-cv-00342
• US case filed in Texas Northern District Court: 3:25-cv-00341
• US case filed in Texas Northern District Court: 3:25-cv-00340
• US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court: 2:25-cv-00750
• US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court: 2:25-cv-00241
• US case filed in Delaware District Court: 1:25-cv-00799
• US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court: 2:25-cv-00182
• US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court: 2:24-cv-00044
• US case filed in North Carolina Eastern District Court: 5:25-cv-00104
• US case filed in New York Southern District Court: 1:25-cv-04617
• US case filed in Michigan Eastern District Court: 4:25-cv-11147
• US case filed in Michigan Eastern District Court: 2:25-cv-11147
• US case filed in Massachusetts District Court: 1:25-cv-10469
• US case filed in Massachusetts District Court: 1:25-cv-10391
• US case filed in Georgia Northern District Court: 1:25-cv-00245
• US case filed in Arizona District Court: 2:25-cv-03749
• US case filed in California Central District Court: 2:25-cv-03471
• US case filed in California Northern District Court: 3:24-cv-08456
• US case filed in California Northern District Court: 3:24-cv-08462
• US case filed in California Northern District Court: 4:24-cv-01040
• US case filed in California Northern District Court: 4:24-cv-08462
• US case filed in California Northern District Court: 5:24-cv-08456
• US case filed in Georgia Northern District Court: 1:24-cv-04709
• US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 26-1736
• US case filed in California Northern District Court: 5:24-cv-08462
• US case filed in Delaware District Court: 1:25-cv-00877
• US case filed in Florida Middle District Court: 6:25-cv-00330
• US case filed in Florida Middle District Court: 8:25-cv-00386
• US case filed in Florida Middle District Court: 8:25-cv-02703

I will use these case numbers and jurisdictions to search for more specific information about the plaintiffs, defendants, filing dates, and current status/outcomes.

It is important to note that the provided date is April 26, 2026, while the patent status in the provided context is "Expired - Lifetime" with an expiration date of December 29, 2025. This means the patent has expired. This information should be factored into the "outcome or current status" if the case is still ongoing. However, the request specifically asks for litigation details, and some of these cases were filed in 2025, which would have been before the expiration date.

I will focus on obtaining the specific details for each case number provided by Google Patents, as the prompt specifies to prefer search results.US Patent 7,323,982, titled "Method and system to control movable entities," has been involved in extensive litigation. The patent is currently assigned to WirelessWerx IP LLC. As of April 26, 2026, the patent has an "Expired - Lifetime" status, with an expiration date of December 29, 2025.

Below is a list of known litigation cases involving US Patent 7,323,982, based on available public records and Google Patents data. Please note that detailed outcomes for all ongoing cases are not always immediately available through public search interfaces.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 7,323,982:

• Plaintiff: Wirelesswerx IP LLC

  • Defendant(s): Verizon
  • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00163
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but implied by the 2024 case number.
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Wirelesswerx IP LLC

  • Defendant(s): Zebra Technologies
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:24-cv-08456
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but implied by the 2024 case number.
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Wirelesswerx IP LLC

  • Defendant(s): Audi
  • Jurisdiction: Not specified in the snippet for this specific defendant, but WirelessWerx IP LLC has filed multiple suits against various automotive companies.
  • Case Number: Not specified in the snippet.
  • Status: Not explicitly detailed, but generally part of broader assertions.

• Plaintiff: Wirelesswerx IP LLC

  • Defendant(s): Tesla
  • Jurisdiction: Not specified in the snippet for this specific defendant.
  • Case Number: Not specified in the snippet.
  • Status: Not explicitly detailed, but generally part of broader assertions.

• Plaintiff: Wirelesswerx IP LLC

  • Defendant(s): Hyundai
  • Jurisdiction: Not specified in the snippet for this specific defendant.
  • Case Number: Not specified in the snippet.
  • Status: Not explicitly detailed, but generally part of broader assertions.

In addition to the specific defendants mentioned above, Wirelesswerx IP LLC has filed numerous lawsuits asserting US7323982 against various other entities across multiple US District Courts. A non-exhaustive list from Google Patents includes:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Numbers: 2:25-cv-00225, 2:25-cv-00750, 2:25-cv-00241, 2:25-cv-00182, 2:24-cv-00044
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Numbers: 7:25-cv-00220, 7:25-cv-00198, 7:25-cv-00094, 7:25-cv-00093
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case Numbers: 3:25-cv-02823, 3:25-cv-01026, 3:25-cv-00382, 3:25-cv-00342, 3:25-cv-00341, 3:25-cv-00340
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Numbers: 1:25-cv-00799, 1:25-cv-00877
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 5:25-cv-00104
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-04617
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Michigan Eastern District Court

  • Case Numbers: 4:25-cv-11147, 2:25-cv-11147
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Massachusetts District Court

  • Case Numbers: 1:25-cv-10469, 1:25-cv-10391
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court

  • Case Numbers: 1:25-cv-00245, 1:24-cv-04709
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona District Court

  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-03749
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-03471
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Numbers: 3:24-cv-08462, 4:24-cv-01040, 4:24-cv-08462, 5:24-cv-08456, 5:24-cv-08462
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case Numbers: 6:25-cv-00330, 8:25-cv-00386, 8:25-cv-02703
  • Status: Ongoing.

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Case Number: 26-1736
  • Status: Ongoing.

It is also noted that an ex parte reexamination of the patent was requested by Unified Patents in July 2025, and the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted this request in August 2025, finding "substantial new questions of patentability" for the challenged claims. This reexamination process could impact the ongoing litigation. The provided information from the prompt indicates that the patent expired on December 29, 2025, which would generally limit the ability to assert new infringement claims for actions occurring after that date. However, cases filed prior to expiration would still proceed to determine past infringement and damages.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently reports no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7,323,982. Despite this, web search reveals that an ex parte reexamination, not an AIA trial, was requested for this patent by Unified Patents in July 2025 and granted in August 2025. This means that while there are no inter partes reviews (IPRs), post-grant reviews (PGRs), or covered business method (CBM) reviews, the patent's claims are undergoing reexamination by the USPTO.

There are no PTAB (AIA trial) proceedings on file for US Patent 7,323,982.

Strategic summary

As there are no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) on file for US Patent 7,323,982, all claims of the patent remain UNTESTED by these specific PTAB mechanisms. Therefore, there are no claims currently canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM. The estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) are not applicable as no such proceedings have concluded.

However, it is crucial to note that an ex parte reexamination of the patent was requested by Unified Patents in July 2025 and subsequently granted by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) in August 2025. This reexamination found "substantial new questions of patentability" for the challenged claims. This indicates that the validity of the patent's claims is currently under scrutiny by the USPTO, although through a different administrative process than an AIA trial. The outcome of this reexamination could lead to the cancellation of claims, similar to an IPR, but the process and estoppel effects are different.

The patent owner, Wirelesswerx IP LLC, has been aggressive in asserting this patent in district court litigation, as evidenced by the numerous cases filed across various U.S. District Courts in 2024 and 2025. The initiation of an ex parte reexamination by Unified Patents suggests a defensive aggregation effort, aiming to challenge the patent's validity without direct involvement in an IPR.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the ex parte reexamination: A defendant facing assertion of US7323982 should closely monitor the ongoing ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents. The reexamination could lead to claim cancellation, which would be highly beneficial for a defendant. The details of this reexamination (e.g., reexamination number) would need to be obtained to track its progress.
• Evaluate reexamination outcomes: If the reexamination results in the cancellation of claims, these canceled claims cannot be asserted in litigation. This would significantly narrow the scope of the patent and potentially render existing infringement theories moot.
• Consider filing an IPR (if applicable): Given the patent's expiration on December 29, 2025, the window for filing an IPR would typically be closed for claims that have been issued for more than nine months. However, if the reexamination uncovers new prior art or legal issues, or if the asserted claims were amended during reexamination, it might open avenues for new challenges, though the patent's expired status means future infringement cannot be claimed.
• Absence of PTAB activity is a signal: The lack of IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for a patent that has been extensively litigated often indicates that prior art challenges through these avenues may have been deemed difficult, or that the patent has survived initial assessments for such challenges. However, the ex parte reexamination indicates that validity challenges are indeed being pursued.
• Review district court filings: Analyze the district court complaints and any preliminary invalidity contentions in the active cases to understand the specific claims being asserted and the invalidity arguments already being made by other defendants. This can inform any potential strategies for a new defendant.

Inventors

The named inventors for US Patent 7,323,982 are Houston Staton, James Ashley, Sr., James Ashley, Jr., Frank Mooney, Patrick Mooney, Edward Lang, Charles Maggs, and German Santos. At the time of filing, these inventors appear to have been employed by the original assignee, Wirelesswerx International Inc., as their interests in the patent application were assigned to Wirelesswerx International Inc. shortly after the filing date.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is Wirelesswerx International Inc. Based on the patent's detailed description of a "Method and system to control movable entities" and the internal components of a "transponder 105" and a "backend control system 150," it appears Wirelesswerx International Inc. was involved in developing and potentially commercializing GPS vehicle tracking and control systems. However, public records do not definitively confirm that Wirelesswerx International Inc. widely shipped a product embodying the claims in commerce.

Regarding its current status, Wirelesswerx International Inc. transferred ownership of US7323982 to Wirelesswerx IP LLC in June 2022. Its current operating status or primary line of business post-transfer is not immediately discernible from the patent record alone.

Assignment timeline

• 2005-07-06 (executed) / recorded 2005-07-11 — Reel 016259/0569

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Houston Staton, James Ashley, Sr., James Ashley, Jr., Frank Mooney, Patrick Mooney, Edward Lang, Charles Maggs, German Santos (all inventors, as individual assignments).
  • Assignee: Wirelesswerx International, Inc.
  • Correspondent: LUNDGREN & JOHNSON, P.S.C. (212 SOUTH DREW STREET, PO BOX 2831, LAKE CITY, FL 32056).
  • Context: Initial assignment of inventor rights to the original corporate entity.

• 2022-06-23 (executed) / recorded 2022-06-30 — Reel 057530/0695

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WIRELESSWERX INTERNATIONAL, INC.
  • Assignee: WIRELESSWERX IP LLC
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP (ONE LOGAN SQUARE, 130 N. 18TH STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103).
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from the original entity to a new entity with an "IP" designation.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US7323982

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7323982
    2005 : Inventors assigned to Wirelesswerx International Inc
    2008 : Patent issued
    2022 : Wirelesswerx International Inc to Wirelesswerx IP LLC
    2024 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from Wirelesswerx International Inc. to Wirelesswerx IP LLC on 2022-06-23 / recorded 2022-06-30 (Reel 057530/0695). The "IP LLC" suffix in the assignee's name strongly suggests a licensing-focused entity, and the previous analysis indicates this entity asserts patents against other companies.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Wirelesswerx IP LLC, the current assignee, is identified in the litigation summary as having asserted this patent against multiple companies including Verizon, Zebra Technologies, Audi, Tesla, and Hyundai. Unified Patents also requested an ex parte reexamination of the patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. The initial assignment used LUNDGREN & JOHNSON, P.S.C. (Reel 016259/0569), while the subsequent assignment to Wirelesswerx IP LLC used BLANK ROME LLP (Reel 057530/0695). These are different correspondents.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only two assignments are recorded over a period of 17 years.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to Wirelesswerx IP LLC occurred in June 2022 (Reel 057530/0695). The earliest litigation case identified is from 2024 (e.g., 2:24-cv-00163), which is more than six months after the transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no information indicating a bankruptcy proceeding for Wirelesswerx International Inc. associated with the patent transfer.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Wirelesswerx IP LLC appears to be an asserting entity, and Wirelesswerx International Inc. may have been an operating company, there is no explicit evidence from the provided records (e.g., SEC filings or public reports) to confirm that the transfer was part of a privateering arrangement where the original operating company benefits from the assertion.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by an entity actively involved in assertion, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is driven by two strong signals: the transfer of the patent to Wirelesswerx IP LLC (Reel 057530/0695), a name explicitly indicating an intellectual property focus, and the confirmed pattern of assertion by Wirelesswerx IP LLC against numerous companies, as detailed in the litigation summary. The current assignee clearly operates as a patent licensing and assertion entity.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US7323982

The most relevant prior art for US Patent 7,323,982, "Method and system to control movable entities," can be identified by examining the patent's own citations. This analysis will focus on U.S. patents cited within the 7,323,982 patent, as these are considered by the examiner during prosecution and represent the closest known art at the time.

A search of the USPTO database for US patent 7,323,982, specifically examining its "Patent Citations" section, reveals numerous references. The following are some of the most relevant citations, along with their publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and the claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

• U.S. Patent 3,518,674 (Moorhead et al.)

  • Full Citation: US3518674A
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: June 30, 1970; Priority: February 13, 1969
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a mobile unit locating system. It focuses on systems for tracking the position of mobile units.
  • Potentially Anticipates: This patent broadly anticipates the concept of tracking movable entities. Depending on the specifics of its disclosure, it could potentially anticipate the foundational elements of claims 1, 20, 31, 42, 47, 48, 49, and 55, particularly the aspect of determining the location of a movable entity. However, the sophistication of "geographical zones" and "configurable operations" as defined in 7,323,982 would likely differentiate it.

• U.S. Patent 3,772,668 (Smith)

  • Full Citation: US3772668A
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: November 12, 1973; Priority: December 29, 1971
  • Brief Description: This patent, like Moorhead et al., is an early example of a mobile unit locating system.
  • Potentially Anticipates: Similar to US3518674A, this patent may anticipate the basic idea of locating mobile units, thus potentially impacting the broadest interpretations of claims 1, 20, 31, 42, 47, 48, 49, and 55 related to entity tracking.

• U.S. Patent 6,674,368 B2 (Hawkins et al.)

  • Full Citation: US6674368B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: January 6, 2004; Priority: July 2, 2002
  • Brief Description: While the full abstract is not immediately available in the snippets, the publication date being close to the priority date of US7323982 (November 5, 2004) suggests it is highly relevant. It is cited as a "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENT".
  • Potentially Anticipates: Without the full text, it is difficult to specify claims. However, given the subject matter of US7323982, a contemporary patent on tracking or control of movable entities would likely be considered.

• U.S. Patent 6,717,513 B1 (Sandelman et al.)

  • Full Citation: US6717513B1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: April 6, 2004; Priority: November 27, 2001
  • Brief Description: Similar to Hawkins et al., this patent's publication date is very close to the priority date of US7323982. It is also listed as a "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENT".
  • Potentially Anticipates: Further investigation into the full text would be needed, but its proximity in time and general subject matter suggests it could be relevant to the tracking, monitoring, or control aspects of various claims, particularly the system and method claims (1, 20, 31, 42, 47, 48, 49, 55).

• U.S. Patent 6,812,824 B1 (Goldinger et al.)

  • Full Citation: US6812824B1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: November 2, 2004; Priority: December 20, 2002
  • Brief Description: This patent was published just days before the provisional filing date of US7323982. This makes it extremely relevant. It is also cited as a "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENT".
  • Potentially Anticipates: Due to its very close publication date to the priority date of US7323982, this patent is highly likely to anticipate elements of many of the claims, especially if it describes methods or systems for location-based control or event triggering in movable entities. Further analysis of its claims and specification would be crucial to determine which specific claims (1, 20, 31, 42, 47, 48, 49, 55) it most directly impacts.

It's important to note that the above analysis is based on the limited descriptions available in the patent citation list. A full anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed comparison of each claim of US7323982 against the full disclosure of each cited prior art patent.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 7,323,982 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis of U.S. Patent 7,323,982, "Method and system to control movable entities," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relies on the understanding of prior art explicitly acknowledged or implicitly described within the patent's specification. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in this field would possess expertise in embedded systems, wireless communications, GPS tracking technologies, and location-based services. The "Prior art date" for this patent is November 5, 2004.

Identified Prior Art Concepts from the Patent Specification:

The patent's own background and definitions establish the following as known prior art:

• Prior Art Reference A: GPS Vehicle Tracking Systems: The patent states, "GPS vehicle tracking systems have become increasingly popular and more economically accessible to businesses and individuals. Most tracking locator systems utilize ground positioning system (GPS) technology." It further elaborates on their diverse applications, including "cargo transportation, public transportation, personal tracking, investigations of enforcement agencies," and their use for "increasing fleet efficiency, reducing operating costs such as fuel costs, and supervising the correct operation of deliveries, pick-ups, and routes associated with fleet operation." These systems inherently include a transponder (or similar device) with a GPS receiver, a communications network, and a central monitoring station.
• Prior Art Reference B: Intelligent Embedded Devices and Configurable Logic: The patent describes its transponder as having "the features, flexibility, and capability of an intelligent device" containing "an at least 32-bit processor which can interface with at least one modem (cellular, satellite, and others), at least one Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, at least one memory module, and other peripheral devices." This description implicitly acknowledges that embedded systems with microprocessors, memory, and interfaces for various components were known, and that such systems could be configured for specific operations and event management.
• Prior Art Reference C: Remote Command and Control Systems: The patent mentions that a "backend control system 150" sends "commands to the transponder 105." It also describes "asset management and monitoring devices" that "allow users to track the position of vehicles and cargo and other entities," implying interaction and control features were known.

Obviousness Combinations and Motivation to Combine:

Combination 1: Prior Art A + Prior Art B (Autonomous Event Detection and Configurable Operations)

Targeted Claims: Claims 1, 20, 31, 49, and 55, which involve the transponder autonomously determining events and executing configurable operations based on geographical zones.

Argument: A PHOSITA, familiar with conventional GPS vehicle tracking systems (Prior Art A) that transmit location data to a central server for monitoring, would have recognized the inherent latency, bandwidth consumption, and potential for communication failure associated with solely server-side processing. To overcome these drawbacks, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to leverage the known capabilities of intelligent embedded devices and configurable logic (Prior Art B) by shifting some of the processing and decision-making logic from the central server to the on-board transponder.

Motivation for Combination:

• Improved Responsiveness: Performing event detection (e.g., entering/exiting a geofence) and triggering immediate actions directly on the transponder significantly reduces the time delay between an event's occurrence and the corresponding action, which is critical for safety or security functions (e.g., stopping a vehicle that enters a forbidden zone).
• Reduced Communication Overhead and Cost: By processing location data locally, the transponder would only need to transmit event notifications (e.g., "vehicle entered zone") rather than a continuous stream of raw GPS coordinates. This conserves communication bandwidth and reduces costs, particularly with "typically higher costs of satellite communication."
• Enhanced System Robustness and Offline Capability: Local processing allows the system to continue monitoring and executing critical operations even when communication with the central network is temporarily lost. The patent itself notes that "Whenever the transponder 105 cannot transmit data packets due to a lack of coverage... the packers are stored in one of at least two history logs on-board flash memory storage device." This demonstrates the known need for robust operation independent of continuous network connectivity.

Specific Zone Definition Methods:

• Pixilated Images (Claims 1, 31, 49, 55): Given the common use of digital maps and graphical user interfaces for defining geographical areas on computing devices, and the established ability of embedded microprocessors to store and process digital image data, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to represent geographical zones as pixilated images for on-board storage and processing within the transponder. The process of defining "an enclosed area on a pixilated image using said plurality of coordinates" and associating "each coordinate to a pixel" reflects known computational geometry and image processing techniques.
• Waypoints (Claims 20, 49, 55): Waypoints, defined as a geographical center point with a radius, were a standard and widely understood method for designating specific locations or simple circular zones in GPS-based navigation and tracking systems. The patent's definition of a "waypoint" as "a circular area defined by a geographical center point and radius" confirms its prior art nature. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use such a known and efficient method for defining geographical zones within the transponder's memory.

Combination 2: Prior Art A + Prior Art B + Prior Art C (Remote Command-based Operations)

Targeted Claims: Claims 42, 47, and 48, which involve the transponder executing a configurable operation upon receiving a command from a control center, where the command is associated with the entity's status in relation to a geographical zone.

Argument: Building upon the combination of a GPS vehicle tracking system (Prior Art A) with on-board intelligence (Prior Art B) for local event detection, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to integrate remote command and control capabilities (Prior Art C). If a transponder could already determine its location relative to defined geographical zones and detect events, it would be a natural and obvious extension to allow a central control system to send specific commands to trigger operations based on these detected conditions or for manual intervention.

Motivation for Combination:

• Centralized Oversight and Intervention: While autonomous operation is beneficial, central control provides a layer of human oversight or more complex decision-making capability that may not be feasible for a fully autonomous transponder. This allows for commands to be issued based on aggregated data, specific policies, or real-time human assessment.
• Flexibility and Dynamic Control: Remote commands offer flexibility to dynamically change or initiate operations (e.g., "unlock the back door of an armored truck when it arrives at the bank or turn on the fuel pumps for a tanker truck when it arrives at a gas station"), allowing for adaptive control based on evolving situations, even if the transponder has detected the relevant geographical event.
• Leveraging Existing Infrastructure: Since conventional GPS tracking systems (Prior Art A) already communicate with a central system over a network, extending this communication to include command transmission (Prior Art C) to an intelligent transponder (Prior Art B) is a straightforward application of known technologies.

Therefore, the combination of known GPS tracking systems with known embedded system intelligence, including local processing of geographical zones and event detection, and further enhanced by known remote command capabilities, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA prior to the invention of US7323982. The motivations for such combinations—including improved responsiveness, cost efficiency, robustness, and centralized control—would have been readily apparent.