Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Grupo Aeromexico SAB De CV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Grupo Aeromexico S.A.B. de C.V. and Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03335, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's regular and established place of business in the district, including ground operations at Los Angeles International Airport and an office for its cargo operations.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight Wi-Fi systems, provided by Gogo and Panasonic, infringe a patent related to dynamically managing and redirecting user internet access based on a set of modifiable rules.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems, often called "captive portals," that control internet access by first directing users to a specific portal for authentication or payment before granting broader access, a common feature in public Wi-Fi environments.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue patent, which indicates that the original patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118) underwent a subsequent examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a process that can result in the clarification or amendment of claim scope. The complaint also notes that other companies have licensed the patented technology.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-05-04	Earliest Priority Date (U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/084,014)
2016-01-01	Alleged start of installation period for Accused Panasonic Systems
2017-06-27	Issue Date of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459
2018-04-20	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 - User specific automatic data redirection system

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 (User specific automatic data redirection system), issued June 27, 2017. (Compl. ¶3).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art internet access control systems, such as firewalls and proxy servers, as being “static.” (’459 Patent, col. 2:32-36). It states that rule sets for these systems could only be changed by manual reprogramming by a network administrator, and that web-based redirection was typically controlled by remote servers rather than the local internet service provider (ISP). (’459 Patent, col. 1:48-2:11, 2:29-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a “redirection server” located at the local network gateway (e.g., within an ISP). (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). This server receives a user-specific “rule set” from an authentication server upon user login and applies it to that user’s connection, which is identified by a temporary network address. (’459 Patent, col. 4:20-33). The key innovation is the system's ability to “dynamically” and “automatically” modify these rule sets based on various conditions, such as the user’s actions (e.g., filling out a questionnaire), the passage of time, or signals from external servers, without requiring manual administrator intervention. (’459 Patent, col. 7:8-23, 7:65-8:2).
• Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for more flexible and sophisticated management of user access, enabling features like tiered service, timed sessions, and conditional access (e.g., requiring users to view advertisements or complete a form). (Compl. ¶20-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "at least claim 91, among other claims." (Compl. ¶31).
• Independent claim 91 of the ’459 Patent requires:
  • A redirection server programmed with a user's rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address.
  • The rule set contains functions to control data passing between the user and a public network.
  • The server is configured to automatically modify the rule set while it is correlated to the temporary address.
  • The server is configured to automatically modify the rule set as a function of a combination of time, user data, or user location.
  • The server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of time while it is correlated to the temporary address.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims. (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two accused instrumentalities: the "Accused Gogo System" and the "Accused Panasonic System," which provide in-flight Wi-Fi service on Aeromexico aircraft (collectively, the "Accused Systems"). (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Systems provide internet access to passengers. When a passenger first connects, their web browser is allegedly forced to a service portal (the "Gogo Portal" or "Panasonic Avionics inflight Wi-Fi service portal"). (Compl. ¶32.a, ¶33.a).
• This initial redirection occurs regardless of the internet address the passenger initially requests, effectively creating a "walled garden." (Compl. ¶32.b, ¶33.b).
• To gain broader internet access, the passenger must typically authenticate via payment or by using a pre-determined pass. This action allegedly triggers a modification of the rule set associated with the passenger's device, granting access for a limited duration. (Compl. ¶32.c, ¶32.d).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides infringement allegations for both the Gogo and Panasonic systems. The complaint provides a diagram from Gogo's corporate website illustrating the onboard hardware components, including an onboard server unit ("ACPU-2") and Wi-Fi antennas, that comprise the accused communication network (Compl. p. 10). The following chart summarizes the allegations for claim 91, which are substantively identical for both accused systems.

RE46,459 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 91)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a redirection server programmed with a user's rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address	The onboard server (e.g., Gogo's ACPU-2) acts as a redirection server that enforces a rule set for each user device, which is given a temporarily assigned network address upon connecting.	¶32.a, ¶33.a	col. 4:20-33
wherein the rule set contains at least one of a plurality of functions used to control data passing between the user and a public network	The server is configured to redirect a passenger's web browser to a service portal, thereby controlling the passenger's data flow to the public internet.	¶32.b, ¶33.b	col. 5:25-34
wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically modify at least a portion of the rule set while the rule set is correlated to the temporarily assigned network address	Upon a passenger's payment or other login authentication, the server allegedly modifies its rule set to allow that passenger access to the Internet.	¶32.c, ¶33.c	col. 7:8-23
wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically modify at least a portion of the rule set as a function of some combination of time, data transmitted to or from the user, or location the user accesses	Upon payment or authentication (data from the user), the rule set is modified to provide internet access for a limited amount of time (time).	¶32.d, ¶33.d	col. 8:54-64
wherein the redirection server is configured to modify at least a portion of the rule set as a function of time while the rule set is correlated to the temporarily assigned network address	Upon payment, the rule set is modified to grant the user internet access for a limited duration (e.g., 30 minutes).	¶32.e, ¶33.e	col. 7:65-8:2

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations raise the question of whether the term "redirection server," as described in the patent's 1998-era dial-up ISP context, can be construed to read on the integrated, on-board servers of a modern in-flight Wi-Fi system. A defendant may argue that the claimed architecture requires distinct and separate authentication and redirection servers, unlike the allegedly integrated accused systems.
• Technical Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused systems "automatically modify" a rule set "as a function of" user data or time. The court may need to determine if a one-time modification triggered by a user payment or login constitutes the dynamic, functional modification contemplated by the patent, or if it is a simpler binary change that falls outside the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "redirection server"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the defense may seek to define it narrowly based on the patent's specific embodiments.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the server's role functionally, stating it "receives information regarding newly established sessions from the authentication accounting server" and "is programed to implement the rule set for the IP address." (’459 Patent, col. 5:1-12). This functional language could support construing the term to cover any server that performs these actions, regardless of its specific network environment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description consistently depict the "redirection server" (208) as a discrete component within an ISP architecture, connected to but separate from the "authentication accounting server" (204). (’459 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:1-4). This may support an interpretation that requires a non-integrated component.

The Term: "automatically modify"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior "static" systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis depends on whether a modification triggered by a passenger's payment is considered "automatic."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides an example where a rule set is modified after an external server sends an "authorization to the redirection server," such as after a user completes a questionnaire. (’459 Patent, col. 7:8-23). This suggests that a modification triggered by a discrete event, without direct administrator action, can be "automatic."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes modifications that are periodic, such as redirecting a user "every ten minutes." (’459 Patent, col. 6:46-51). A defendant could argue this implies a continuous, pre-programmed, time-based logic, and that a one-time, user-initiated transactional event like a payment is not "automatic" in the same sense.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Aeromexico induces infringement by providing the Accused Systems to its passengers and providing "instructions on how to access the Wi-Fi network," with knowledge that these actions would cause its passengers to directly infringe the ’459 Patent. (Compl. ¶34).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Aeromexico has had knowledge of the asserted patent "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" and has continued its allegedly infringing activities, thus constituting willful infringement. (Compl. ¶35-36).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "redirection server," which is described in the patent in the context of a 1998-era terrestrial ISP, be construed to cover the integrated, on-board servers that manage access in modern in-flight Wi-Fi systems?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused systems' modification of access rights following a passenger's payment or login meet the claim requirement for an "automatic" modification "as a function of" time and user data, or is there a fundamental mismatch between this transactional trigger and the dynamic, conditional logic described in the patent?
• The case may also turn on a question of proof: given the complaint's reliance on high-level marketing materials from third-party vendors (Gogo and Panasonic), can the plaintiff obtain evidence through discovery that demonstrates the internal software and hardware architecture of the accused systems actually performs the specific, multi-step rule-based redirection required by the claims?