WirelessWerx IP v. Raytheon Technologies: Voluntarily Dismissed After 242 Days
WirelessWerx IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Raytheon Technologies Corporation in the Western District of Texas, asserting US8009037B2 — a patent covering a method and system to control movable entities. The case resolved in 242 days when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims.
Movable-entity control patent dropped before any merits ruling
On October 7, 2022, WirelessWerx IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Raytheon Technologies Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-01059), before Judge Kathleen Cardone. The sole asserted patent was US8009037B2 (application no. US11/949975), directed to a method and system to control movable entities. Raytheon Technologies — a major aerospace and defense technology corporation — was the sole defendant.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order dated June 6, 2023, states that the Court, acting on Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed June 5, 2023, ordered all of Plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court simultaneously denied Raytheon's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) as moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees.
The case closed 242 days after filing without any merits adjudication of US8009037B2. The specific circumstances driving the plaintiff's decision to voluntarily dismiss are not disclosed in the available public record. Whether undisclosed commercial terms accompanied the dismissal is likewise not reflected in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 242 days
242 days from filing to close — under the median for W.D. Tex. patent disputes
US8009037B2 — Method and System to Control Movable Entities
Any company developing or deploying systems for controlling movable entities — including autonomous vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, robotics platforms, or remote asset management systems — should assess whether their product workflows intersect with the claims of US8009037B2. The patent's assertion against a defense and aerospace prime suggests the holder considers its claims applicable to sophisticated, large-scale deployments. The absence of a merits ruling means no court has narrowed or invalidated any claim.
Official order — verbatim text
The court order of June 6, 2023 records a plaintiff-initiated Rule 41(a) dismissal with prejudice, with all parties directed to bear their own costs. No substantive ruling was issued on infringement or validity of US8009037B2, and the defendant's Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot — leaving the merits of both parties' positions unresolved on the public record.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal — what it means in practice
A Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal allows a plaintiff to withdraw its claims without a ruling on the merits. The Basis of Termination records this as 'Voluntary dismissal.' The court order specifies dismissal with prejudice, meaning — per the order's own terms — WirelessWerx IP is barred from re-filing the same claims against Raytheon on US8009037B2 in future proceedings. The pending Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot.
No merits ruling issuedThe public record is silent on prejudice in the Basis of Termination
The recorded Basis of Termination states only 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying with or without prejudice. The court order itself, however, uses the phrase 'dismissed with prejudice.' These are two distinct data points; this page reports both as-is. A dismissal with prejudice forecloses re-filing the same claims; a dismissal without prejudice would permit a future action. The specific terms beyond the order text are not disclosed in the available record.
Order: with prejudiceRaytheon exits without a merits victory — but Motion to Dismiss denied as moot
Raytheon Technologies obtains a practical resolution without a court ruling on validity or infringement of US8009037B2. The denial of its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) as moot means no substantive ruling was made on its arguments. If the dismissal is with prejudice as stated in the order, Raytheon faces no further exposure to WirelessWerx IP on this patent in the same court on the same claims. Each party bears its own legal costs.
No invalidity rulingUS8009037B2 remains unadjudicated — third parties retain exposure
Because the case ended without any merits ruling, US8009037B2 was never adjudicated as valid, invalid, or infringed. The patent retains its presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Companies operating in the movable-entity control and related autonomous or remotely-managed systems space should note that the patent holder's enforcement posture toward other potential defendants remains an open question not resolved by this case.
Patent validity unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | WirelessWerx IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8009037B2 (method and system to control movable entities)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Raytheon Technologies Corporation | Company | Raytheon Technologies Corporation — aerospace and defense technology 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 | Anne Elise Herold Li | Attorney | Counsel for Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clifton Scott Elgarten | Attorney | Counsel for Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vincent J. Galluzzo | Attorney | Counsel for Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowell & Moring, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Kathleen Cardone | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the movable-entity control and autonomous systems space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from WirelessWerx IP's assertion of US8009037B2 against Raytheon Technologies in the movable-entity control domain.
WirelessWerx IP's patent portfolio in wireless control systems
WirelessWerx IP's assertion of US8009037B2 against a major defense prime suggests a focused portfolio strategy in the wireless and remote control of movable entities. Mapping the full WirelessWerx IP patent portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications from the US11/949975 family — can reveal additional claim coverage that may be relevant to R&D teams building in this space.
Portfolio mapping signalFiling trends in remote and autonomous movable-entity control
Patent filing activity in the method and system space for controlling movable entities has accelerated alongside commercial growth in drones, autonomous ground vehicles, and connected defense platforms. Tracking filing trends by technology class around US8009037B2's IPC/CPC classifications can surface emerging blocking positions and white-space opportunities before they are asserted in litigation.
Filing trend signalRaytheon Technologies' patent position in autonomous and control systems
As a defendant in this action, Raytheon Technologies' own patent portfolio in autonomous systems, unmanned vehicle control, and wireless command technologies is a material competitive intelligence signal. Understanding the depth and claim density of Raytheon's filings in this domain helps competitors and suppliers assess both freedom-to-operate risk and potential cross-licensing leverage in the defense and aerospace sector.
Defensive portfolio signalAdjacent claim space near US8009037B2: where innovation is less crowded
The claim landscape immediately adjacent to US8009037B2 — particularly in multi-entity coordination, edge-compute control architectures, and AI-driven movable-entity management — may contain white space where new patent applications face fewer blocking positions. R&D teams innovating at the intersection of wireless control and autonomous mobility can use claim mapping to identify filing opportunities not covered by existing assertions.
White space opportunitySimilar patent infringement cases: movable-entity control systems in W.D. Tex.
Explore comparable patent assertion cases involving movable-entity control, autonomous systems, and wireless control technology filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the movable-entity control IP landscape
A pre-merits dismissal with own-costs order in W.D. Tex. sends a clear signal about assertion economics and defensive strategy.
Pre-merits exits in W.D. Tex. often signal rapid defense pressure
A voluntary dismissal filed just eight months after complaint — while a defense motion to dismiss is pending — suggests the defendant's early procedural posture may have materially influenced the plaintiff's calculus. Entities monitoring movable-entity control patent assertions should track whether WirelessWerx IP pursues US8009037B2 against other defendants.
Own-costs order limits plaintiff recovery and sets tone for future assertions
The Court's order that each party bear its own costs and fees means WirelessWerx IP recovered no monetary award from this action. For patent assertion entities, repeated own-costs outcomes can affect litigation economics. Competitors and potential targets of US8009037B2 should note this as a datapoint in assessing WirelessWerx IP's assertion strategy.
WirelessWerx v Raytheon — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by WirelessWerx IP on June 5, 2023. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The court order of June 6, 2023 states that claims were dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a). All parties were ordered to bear their own costs and fees. No merits ruling on infringement or validity of US8009037B2 was issued.
WirelessWerx IP asserted US8009037B2 (application no. US11/949975), a patent directed to a method and system to control movable entities. The patent was the sole asserted patent in the action filed in the Western District of Texas.
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed before any merits ruling was issued. US8009037B2 was never adjudicated as valid, invalid, or infringed. The patent retains its statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and could form the basis of future enforcement actions against other parties.
Raytheon Technologies filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) during the proceedings. When WirelessWerx IP filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, the Court denied Raytheon's Motion to Dismiss as moot in the same June 6, 2023 order. No substantive ruling was made on the motion's arguments.
The court order states the dismissal is with prejudice, which under Rule 41(a) would bar WirelessWerx IP from re-filing the same claims against Raytheon Technologies on US8009037B2. However, the recorded Basis of Termination states only 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying prejudice. The specific terms beyond the order text are not further disclosed in the available public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.