WirelessWerx IP v. Apple Computer — Voluntarily Dismissed After 104 Days
WirelessWerx IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Apple Computer, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting two wireless location-monitoring patents. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice after just 104 days — before Apple filed any answer or dispositive motion.
A 104-day patent assertion against Apple ends before Apple responds
On October 6, 2022, WirelessWerx IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Apple Computer, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-01050), before Judge David Counts. The complaint asserted two patents — US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 — covering technologies described as emergency control in a multi-dimensional space and a method and system to monitor persons utilizing wireless media.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order, dated January 18, 2023, states that the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which the court confirmed was self-effectuating as Apple had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court ordered the clerk to close the action.
The case lasted only 104 days — a notably short span even by pre-answer dismissal standards. The specific reasons driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record, nor are any terms, agreements, or arrangements between the parties. What is clear is that the litigation concluded before any substantive merits exchange between the parties.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 104 days
104 days — resolved before defendant's first responsive pleading
US8200186B2 & US7317927B2 — wireless person-monitoring and emergency control
Any company developing or commercialising wireless person-monitoring systems, real-time location services, emergency coordination platforms, or multi-dimensional spatial control features should assess freedom to operate against these two patents. The claims span foundational methods in wireless tracking — technologies embedded in consumer devices, enterprise safety systems, IoT deployments, and fleet management platforms. The fact that WirelessWerx pursued Apple, one of the world's largest device manufacturers, suggests the portfolio is being actively monetised.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), requiring no judicial merits assessment. The docket reflects no invalidity findings, no claim construction, and no damages determination. The with-prejudice designation is notable — it was plaintiff-elected, not court-ordered — and its specific legal or commercial rationale is not disclosed in the available public record.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the pre-answer exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's unilateral exit before defendant responds
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. The court confirmed Apple had not yet done either, making the dismissal self-effectuating — no judicial approval was required. The case closed by operation of the rule alone.
Pre-answer dismissalDismissed with prejudice — WirelessWerx cannot re-file these claims
The plaintiff explicitly styled its notice as a dismissal 'with prejudice,' which bars WirelessWerx from re-asserting the same claims against Apple on these two patents in a future action. This is a meaningful distinction: a dismissal without prejudice would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether any agreement or consideration accompanied this choice.
Claims barred against AppleApple exits without filing an answer — and faces no re-litigation risk here
Apple Computer, Inc. was dismissed before it needed to serve any responsive pleading. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Apple faces no future risk of WirelessWerx re-asserting US8200186B2 or US7317927B2 against it in this jurisdiction on these claims. No merits determination was made, and the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
Apple: no pleading filed, claims barredPatents survive — third parties in wireless monitoring space remain exposed
The voluntary dismissal does not invalidate or limit US8200186B2 or US7317927B2. Both patents retain their full enforceability against the broader market. Companies operating in wireless location monitoring, emergency coordination systems, or multi-dimensional space tracking should treat these patents as active enforcement assets. WirelessWerx remains free to assert them against other defendants.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | WirelessWerx IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 (wireless location monitoring)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple Computer, Inc. | Company | Apple Computer, Inc. — global consumer electronics and software companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for WirelessWerx IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing WirelessWerx IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Burbank | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven J. Wingard | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Counts | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in wireless location monitoring and emergency control
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from WirelessWerx IP's assertion of wireless monitoring and spatial emergency control technologies against Apple.
WirelessWerx's wireless monitoring patent holdings beyond this case
WirelessWerx IP, LLC holds at least two patents in wireless person-monitoring and emergency spatial control. Understanding the full breadth of its portfolio — including continuation applications, related family members, and co-pending claims — is critical for any company operating in real-time location systems, IoT safety platforms, or wireless coordination infrastructure.
Portfolio mappingFiling trends in wireless person-tracking and spatial emergency control
The wireless person-monitoring space is seeing increasing patent filings driven by IoT expansion, indoor positioning systems, and emergency response technology. Tracking filing trends around the core claims of US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 can reveal where innovation density is rising — and where white space remains for differentiated R&D investment.
Filing trend analysisApple's patent posture in wireless location and emergency services
Apple has built a substantial IP portfolio in location services, indoor positioning, and emergency SOS features. Mapping Apple's filings adjacent to the claims of US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 can reveal how it has developed defensive or design-around strategies in wireless monitoring — useful intelligence for competitors and technology licensors alike.
Defensive portfolio signalsAdjacent R&D opportunities near multi-dimensional emergency control claims
The claim scope of US8200186B2 — emergency control in a multi-dimensional space — points to potential white space in three-dimensional indoor emergency coordination, drone-based monitoring, and AI-driven spatial alerting systems. These adjacent domains may offer patentable differentiation for R&D teams building next-generation safety and monitoring platforms.
White space mappingSimilar patent infringement cases in wireless location monitoring
Explore comparable patent assertion actions in wireless person-monitoring and location technology filed in W.D. Texas and other high-volume patent venues.
What this case signals for the wireless location monitoring IP landscape
A rapid pre-answer exit in a Western District of Texas patent case often signals a strategic recalibration — not a clear win for either side.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice warrant close monitoring for follow-on actions
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant responds, it forecloses re-litigation against that specific defendant. However, the asserted patents remain active. Competitors in wireless person-monitoring and multi-dimensional emergency control technologies should monitor WirelessWerx's litigation activity for new targets and claims.
Western District of Texas remains a high-activity venue for patent assertion entities
Despite recent venue transfer shifts, W.D. Texas continues to attract patent assertion filings. The 104-day lifecycle here — shorter than the median for district-level patent cases — suggests the case did not progress to claim construction or discovery, which typically represent the heaviest defensive cost stages for defendants like Apple.
WirelessWerx v Apple — key questions answered
WirelessWerx IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Apple Computer, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on October 6, 2022. The plaintiff asserted two patents — US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 — covering wireless person-monitoring and emergency control technologies. On January 17, 2023, WirelessWerx filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the court closed the case on January 18, 2023, after 104 days.
A dismissal with prejudice bars WirelessWerx from re-asserting the same claims against Apple on US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 in a future action. Apple was never required to file an answer or any responsive pleading. No merits determination was made. The specific terms or reasons behind WirelessWerx's election to dismiss with prejudice are not disclosed in the available public record.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of either patent. US8200186B2 and US7317927B2 remain active and can be asserted against parties other than Apple. No invalidity finding, claim construction ruling, or limitation on claim scope was issued in this case.
The case was dismissed before Apple filed any answer or motion for summary judgment, meaning the litigation never progressed to claim construction, discovery, or any substantive merits phase. The reasons WirelessWerx elected to dismiss at this early stage are not stated in the available public record. The 104-day duration is shorter than the typical lifecycle for a contested patent infringement action in W.D. Texas.
WirelessWerx asserted two patents: US8200186B2 (application no. US12/350828), covering emergency control in a multi-dimensional space, and US7317927B2 (application no. US11/158667), covering a method and system to monitor persons utilizing wireless media. Both patents relate to wireless location monitoring and real-time person-tracking technologies.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.