WirelessWerx IP v. American Honda Motor: Venue Transfer to C.D. California
WirelessWerx IP LLC filed suit against American Honda Motor Co. in the Northern District of Texas asserting US7323982B2, a patent covering wireless system control technology. Within 66 days, both parties jointly moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California, where it will continue.
Wireless Control Patent Suit Against Honda Moves to California
On February 11, 2025, WirelessWerx IP LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed an infringement action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:25-cv-00342), before Judge Jane J. Boyle. The suit asserts US7323982B2, a patent directed at wirelessly controlling systems, with the accused conduct centering on Honda’s instruction of customers and others in the use of wireless control systems through its website and product manuals.
Before any substantive merits proceedings, both parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Transfer Venue. On April 18, 2025 — just 66 days after filing — Judge Boyle granted the motion, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The court noted that the case could originally have been brought there and that all parties had consented. No merits rulings, claim construction, or cost orders were issued in Texas.
The 66-day timeline suggests the parties reached a venue agreement rapidly, possibly reflecting Honda’s California nexus and defendant-side preference for the C.D. California forum. The public record is silent on what, if any, concurrent licensing negotiations or parallel proceedings may be driving the parties’ mutual willingness to relocate the dispute. The substantive infringement question remains entirely open and will now be litigated in Los Angeles.
Filing to Case Transferred in 66 days
66 days in N.D. Texas before joint transfer — resolved procedurally before any merits ruling
Case transferred to C.D. California: what the venue change means
What a joint transfer means — and what it doesn’t
A transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the case to a different federal district court; it does not end the litigation or resolve the merits. Here, both parties jointly stipulated to the transfer, meaning no party was forced to move — the transfer reflects mutual agreement that C.D. California is the appropriate forum. All prior filings carry over; the case restarts from a scheduling standpoint in the new court.
Venue transfer — merits unresolvedWirelessWerx retains all claims in a new forum
The transfer does not extinguish WirelessWerx’s infringement claims. US7323982B2 remains asserted, and the patent holder will now pursue those claims in the Central District of California. C.D. California typically carries a heavier docket than N.D. Texas, which may affect litigation pace. WirelessWerx’s willingness to jointly transfer suggests comfort with the California forum, or a strategic reason to litigate closer to Honda’s U.S. operational hub.
Claims survive — forum shiftsHonda secures its preferred home-court forum
American Honda Motor Co. is headquartered in Torrance, California, within the Central District. Defendants in patent cases frequently prefer their home district for convenience of witnesses, documents, and personnel. By jointly stipulating to transfer, Honda avoided a contested venue motion and the associated litigation cost, while securing a forum where its practical advantages are likely greater. C.D. California also has an active and experienced patent bench.
Defendant shifts to home districtWireless control IP enforcement: watch C.D. California
The transfer signals that enforcement of wireless system control patents against automotive and consumer electronics companies may increasingly be litigated in California rather than Texas. Companies in the vehicle connectivity and smart-home interface space with U.S. operations in California should monitor the C.D. California docket for WirelessWerx activity. The case’s ultimate outcome — on infringement and validity — will be determined there and could set precedent for similar wireless control patent assertions.
Wireless IP risk — watch C.D. Cal.Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | WirelessWerx IP LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7323982B2, wireless system control technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | American Honda Motor Co., Inc. | Company | American Honda Motor Co., Inc. — U.S. subsidiary of Honda, automotive and consumer productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey E. Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for WirelessWerx IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirby Blair Drake | Attorney | Counsel for WirelessWerx IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for WirelessWerx IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kirby Drake Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WirelessWerx IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing WirelessWerx IP LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ariane Salone Mann | Attorney | Counsel for American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick R. Colsher | Attorney | Counsel for American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP | Law Firm | Representing American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jane J Boyle | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s transfer order is purely procedural — Judge Boyle made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The order confirms only that venue was proper in C.D. California and that all parties consented. The brevity of the ruling is consistent with an unopposed § 1404(a) transfer. Patent enforceability and infringement liability under US7323982B2 remain entirely open questions to be determined by the Central District of California.
US7323982B2 — Wireless system and method for remote control technology
US7323982B2 (application no. US11/105932) is a granted U.S. patent covering wireless systems and methods for controlling systems remotely. In this litigation, the accused conduct focuses on Honda’s instruction of customers via its website and product manuals in the use of wireless control systems — suggesting the patent’s claims may reach companies whose products interact with or instruct users on wireless system operation, not just hardware manufacturers alone.
For the automotive and connected-device sector, this patent’s scope is commercially significant. As vehicles increasingly integrate wireless connectivity — from remote start and mobile app-based control to vehicle-to-infrastructure communication — patents covering foundational wireless control methods present ongoing assertion risk. Any company providing wireless system instruction or control interfaces to end users should evaluate their exposure to this patent’s claim language, particularly given WirelessWerx’s active enforcement posture.
Should you run an FTO against US7323982B2?
R&D and product teams developing wireless device control features, connected vehicle interfaces, or IoT remote-operation systems should treat US7323982B2 as a live enforcement risk. WirelessWerx’s assertion against Honda — targeting instruction manuals and website-based user guidance — suggests that even peripheral product touchpoints, not just core wireless hardware, may fall within claimed scope. Legal teams in automotive, smart home, and consumer electronics sectors should assess exposure before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7323982B2 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface any related WirelessWerx patents in the same family or portfolio. Eureka’s litigation monitoring also flags new cases asserting this patent — giving your team early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7323982B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless control patent cases in federal district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting wireless system control technology in N.D. Texas and C.D. California federal courts.
What this case signals for the wireless control IP landscape
A fast-tracked joint transfer suggests tactical alignment between parties — and the real battle is just beginning in California.
Joint transfers in 66 days rarely happen without prior negotiation
When both parties agree to transfer venue within two months of filing, it typically signals early-stage dialogue — whether on forum selection, licensing terms, or litigation strategy. Companies monitoring WirelessWerx’s enforcement activity should track the C.D. California docket for further developments on US7323982B2.
N.D. Texas is losing patent cases to agreed transfers — a pattern worth tracking
Patent assertion entities frequently file in N.D. Texas for its historically plaintiff-friendly environment. When defendants successfully negotiate joint transfers back to their home districts, it limits that strategic advantage. Honda’s move to C.D. California is consistent with a broader defendant-side tactic of early venue correction via stipulation rather than contested motion.
WirelessWerx v American — key questions answered
WirelessWerx IP LLC filed a patent infringement action against American Honda Motor Co. in the Northern District of Texas, asserting US7323982B2, which covers wireless systems and methods for remotely controlling systems. The alleged infringement relates to Honda’s instruction of customers on the use of wireless control systems via its website and product manuals. The case was transferred to C.D. California after 66 days.
Both parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Transfer Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Judge Boyle granted the transfer on April 18, 2025, noting that the case could have originally been brought in C.D. California and that all parties consented. No contested merits proceedings had occurred. The transfer likely reflects Honda’s California nexus and the parties’ mutual agreement on forum.
US7323982B2 covers wireless systems and methods for controlling systems remotely, with claims that may extend to parties who instruct users on the operation of such systems. For automotive companies integrating wireless connectivity features — including mobile app-based vehicle control and remote start systems — this patent’s scope suggests potential exposure beyond core hardware, including software interfaces and user documentation.
No. The only substantive order issued in the Northern District of Texas was the transfer order dated April 18, 2025. Judge Boyle made no findings on infringement, claim construction, or validity. The case was transferred to the Central District of California with all claims intact and unresolved.
WirelessWerx IP LLC was represented by Jeffrey E. Kubiak, Kirby Blair Drake, and William P. Ramey III of Kirby Drake Law PLLC and Ramey LLP. American Honda Motor Co. was represented by Ariane Salone Mann and Patrick R. Colsher of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.