DCT
2:18-cv-03337
Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Air Canada
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Air Canada (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03337, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Air Canada maintains a "regular and established place of business" at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight Wi-Fi system, which uses Gogo technology, infringes a patent related to systems for dynamically managing and redirecting user internet access.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns network access control systems, commonly known as "captive portals," which redirect users to a specific web page for authentication, payment, or acceptance of terms before granting broader network access.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118, which was filed in 1999 and issued in 2004. Reissue proceedings allow a patentee to correct errors in an issued patent, and the claims are re-examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The complaint also notes that the patented technology has been licensed to other companies.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-05-04 | U.S. Provisional Application 60/084,014 Priority Date |
| 2017-06-27 | U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 Issues |
| 2018-04-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 - “User specific automatic data redirection system,” issued June 27, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art internet access systems as static. Network administrators had to manually reprogram devices like firewalls or proxy servers to change access rules for users. This approach was inflexible and did not allow for dynamic, user-specific rule changes in real-time. (’459 Patent, col. 2:29-36, 2:65-3:3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "redirection server" placed at the gateway of a local network. When a user connects and authenticates, this server receives a user-specific "rule set." The redirection server then processes the user's internet traffic according to these rules, which can permit, block, or redirect data. Crucially, the system is designed to "dynamically" and "automatically" modify these rule sets based on various conditions, such as the user's actions, the passage of time, or signals from other servers on the internet. (’459 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:53-61; col. 8:3-23).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for flexible, individualized, and automated control over user access to a network, a foundational concept for modern managed Wi-Fi services that require user authentication or payment. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 91. (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 91 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 redirection server is configured to automatically modify a portion of the rule set while it is correlated to the temporary address.
- This automatic modification is a function of a combination of time, data from the user, or location the user accesses.
- The redirection server is also configured to modify the rule set as a function of time.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Air Canada's in-flight Wi-Fi service, which the complaint states uses technology from Gogo, including an onboard server identified as "ACPU-2" (the "Accused System"). (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 32a).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused System provides internet access to airline passengers. The complaint alleges that when a passenger first attempts to connect, the system intercepts the request and redirects the user's browser to a "Gogo Portal." (Compl. ¶32a). This portal serves as an interface for authentication and payment. Once a passenger provides credentials or payment (e.g., for a 30-minute pass), the system allegedly modifies its rules to grant that passenger's device broader internet access for the specified duration. (Compl. ¶¶ 32c-e). The complaint provides a diagram from Gogo’s website illustrating the onboard hardware, including the ACPU-2 server and Wi-Fi antennas, which allegedly form part of the Accused System. (Compl. p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- RE46,459 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 Gogo system, including the ACPU-2 server, acts as a redirection server that initially redirects all passenger traffic to the "Gogo Portal" based on a rule set associated with the passenger's temporary network address. | ¶32a | col. 4:62-67 |
| 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 any internet request from the passenger to the Gogo Portal, thereby controlling data flow between the passenger and the public internet. | ¶32b | col. 5:36-45 |
| 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 login authentication, the server modifies its rule set to permit the passenger's device to access the internet. | ¶32c | col. 8:3-23 |
| wherein the redirection server is configured to 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. | The rule set is modified upon receiving payment or credentials ("data from the user") to provide internet access for a limited amount of time ("time"). | ¶32d | col. 11:1-3 |
| 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. | When a passenger pays for a time-limited pass (e.g., 30 minutes), the rule set is modified to provide access for that duration, with time being the operative function. | ¶32e | col. 11:20-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused in-flight Wi-Fi system, an environment not explicitly described in the patent, falls within the scope of claims drafted in the context of a late-1990s dial-up ISP architecture. The defense may challenge whether the "ACPU-2" server is equivalent to the claimed "redirection server."
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the rule set is modified "upon payment or other login authentication." A key technical question will be whether this user-triggered event satisfies the "automatically modify" limitation, or if the claim requires a modification that is independent of a direct user command to proceed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "redirection server"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused Gogo ACPU-2 server, which manages a captive portal, is the type of device covered by the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server by its function: it "controls the user's access to the network" and can "filter, block, redirect, and the like" the user's data based on a dynamic rule set (’459 Patent, col. 4:62-67; col. 6:12-18). This functional language may support an interpretation covering any server that performs these actions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description consistently place the invention within a "dial-up network server" environment, connecting to an ISP (’459 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:4-6). This context could be used to argue the term is limited to that specific network architecture.
The Term: "automatically modify"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from prior art systems with static rules. The dispute will likely focus on what type of trigger qualifies as "automatic."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses that rule sets can be modified based on external signals, such as when a user fills out a questionnaire on a separate web server, which then sends an "authorization to the redirection server" (’459 Patent, col. 8:3-23). This suggests that a modification triggered by a user's interaction with a system can be considered "automatic."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "automatic" could be construed to require modification based on internal system logic (e.g., a timer expiring) or passive network monitoring, rather than as a direct, transactional response to a user's explicit command like submitting a payment form.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Air Canada induces infringement by providing the Accused System to its passengers and providing instructions on how to use the Wi-Fi network, which allegedly causes passengers to directly infringe. (Compl. ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Air Canada had knowledge of the asserted patent and its infringement at least as of the filing date of the complaint. It further alleges that Air Canada "knew or was willfully blind" that its actions would induce infringement by others. (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "redirection server", developed in the context of dial-up ISP networks, be construed to cover the integrated "ACPU-2" server that manages a modern, in-flight Wi-Fi captive portal?
- A key legal and technical question will be one of functional interpretation: does the accused system's modification of access rules, which occurs in direct response to a passenger's payment or login, meet the claim requirement to "automatically modify" the rule set, or is this a fundamentally different, user-commanded process that falls outside the patent’s scope?