Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Air France KLM SA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Société Air France (France) and Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, N.V. (Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03341, C.D. Cal., 07/11/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically ground operations at Los Angeles International Airport, and committing acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ in-flight internet access systems infringe a reissued patent related to dynamically redirecting user data based on a modifiable rule set.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for managing and controlling user access to a network, such as the Internet, by intercepting and redirecting data traffic according to rules that can be automatically updated.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissued patent, indicating it underwent a secondary examination at the USPTO after its original issuance. The complaint alleges that many companies have licensed the patented technology. The original complaint was filed on April 20, 2018.

Case Timeline

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, such as those using packet filtering or proxy servers, as being static (RE46,459 Patent, col. 2:29-36). In these systems, rules for blocking or allowing access could only be changed by manual reprogramming, and they were limited in their ability to apply different rules to different users dynamically (RE46,459 Patent, col. 2:65-3:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "redirection server" that sits between the user and the broader network (RE46,459 Patent, FIG. 2). This server receives a user-specific "rule set" from an authentication server when the user connects (RE46,459 Patent, col. 4:18-24). Crucially, the system is designed to "dynamically" and "automatically" modify these rule sets based on certain conditions, such as the user's activity, the passage of time, or signals from external servers, without manual intervention (RE46,459 Patent, col. 3:9-14; col. 8:4-23). This allows for flexible control over a user's session after the initial connection is established.
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for service providers to implement more sophisticated business models for internet access, such as prepaid timed access, redirecting users to advertisements, or requiring completion of a task (like a questionnaire) before granting full access (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 91 (Compl. ¶33).
• The essential elements of independent claim 91 include:
  • 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 at least a portion of the rule set while it is correlated to the network address.
  • The server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of some combination of time, data transmitted to or from the user, or location the user accesses.
  • The server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of time.
• The complaint notes that claim 91 is asserted as an exemplary claim "among other claims" (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Systems" are comprised of the "Accused Gogo System" and the "Accused Panasonic System," which provide in-flight Wi-Fi services to passengers on Defendants' aircraft (Compl. ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these systems use onboard server hardware (e.g., Gogo's "ACPU-2") to manage passenger internet access (Compl. ¶34.a). When a passenger connects, they are initially redirected to a service portal (the "Gogo Portal" or Panasonic equivalent) to authenticate or purchase access (Compl. ¶¶ 34.a, 35.a). After authentication, the system allegedly modifies a rule set to allow the passenger to access the internet, potentially for a limited time (e.g., 30 minutes) based on their purchase (Compl. ¶¶ 34.c-e, 35.c-e). The complaint illustrates the Gogo system with a diagram showing an onboard server unit ("ACPU2") and Wi-Fi antennas connecting passenger devices to the network (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,459 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "redirection server," as described in the patent in the context of a 1990s-era terrestrial ISP architecture, can be construed to read on the self-contained, modern in-flight Wi-Fi systems at issue.
  • Technical Questions: The dispute may focus on whether the accused systems' one-time authentication and access grant constitutes the "automatic modification" of a "rule set" as contemplated by the patent. The court may need to determine if this is a simple binary gateway (access denied vs. access granted) or if it meets the claim's requirement for a dynamic, ongoing modification of rules based on factors like time or user activity after initial access is granted.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically modify"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the asserted claim, distinguishing the invention from prior static systems. The infringement case depends on whether the accused Gogo and Panasonic systems "automatically modify" a rule set after a user connects, or if they simply perform a one-time authentication to open a gate. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a standard captive portal authentication system falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests modification can be triggered by a wide range of events, including a user filling out a questionnaire on an external server, which then sends a signal to the redirection server to change the rules (RE46,459 Patent, col. 8:9-23). This could support a broad reading where any system-triggered change based on user input (like payment) qualifies as "automatic."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts the invention with "manually reprogramming" a device (RE46,459 Patent, col. 2:33-36). Embodiments describe rules that are reinstated periodically (col. 6:45-59) or disabled after a time limit expires (col. 7:65-8:2). This could support a narrower reading requiring the system to change rules during an active session based on ongoing triggers, rather than just once at the start of a session.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the accused systems to passengers and including instructions on how to use them to access the Wi-Fi network (Compl. ¶36).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants’ knowledge of the patent "at least as of the filing date of this Amended Complaint" (July 11, 2018) or the original complaint (April 20, 2018) and their continued infringing activities thereafter (Compl. ¶¶37-38).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "redirection server," as described in the patent’s 1998-priority-date context of a terrestrial Internet Service Provider, be construed to cover the integrated, onboard server hardware of a modern in-flight connectivity system?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused systems' function—which redirects a user to a captive portal for a one-time payment or authentication to gain general internet access—perform the continuous, dynamic "automatic modification" of a "rule set" based on multiple factors (like time or user location) as required by Claim 91, or is it a fundamentally different and more basic gating mechanism?