Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Alaska Air Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03345, C.D. Cal., 07/11/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business, including operations at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 6, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight Wi-Fi service infringes a patent related to systems for dynamically redirecting and managing a user's data access to a public network based on a personalized and modifiable rule set.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns network access control, specifically methods for an internet service provider or network operator to manage user connections by dynamically altering access rules based on user identity, actions, or other parameters.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patent as of the original complaint's filing date.

Case Timeline

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Prior art methods for controlling user internet access, such as packet filtering or proxy servers, were described as "static." (Compl. ¶24; ’459 Patent, col. 2:32-36). Rule sets in these systems could only be changed by manually reprogramming the device, and control was often limited to either blocking or allowing access to specific sites for specific terminals. (Compl. ¶24; ’459 Patent, col. 2:65-3:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system featuring a "redirection server" placed at the gateway between a user and a public network (e.g., the Internet). (Compl. ¶19, Fig. 2). This server receives a user-specific "rule set" from an authentication server when the user connects. (Compl. ¶14; ’459 Patent, col. 4:26-33). Crucially, the redirection server can "automatically modify" this rule set while the user is connected, based on factors like time, user input, or data from external servers, allowing for dynamic and flexible control over the user's session. (Compl. ¶21; ’459 Patent, col. 8:3-18).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a more flexible architecture for mediating a user's access to the Internet than the static firewall and proxy systems of the time. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 91. (Compl. ¶31).
• The essential elements of independent claim 91 are:
  • A redirection server programmed with a user's rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address.
  • 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 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.
  • The redirection server is configured to automatically 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 redirection server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of time while the rule set is correlated to the temporarily assigned network address.
• The complaint notes that further discovery may reveal infringement of other claims. (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused System" is identified as the in-flight Wi-Fi internet access system installed on Alaska Airlines aircraft, which utilizes Gogo technology. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 32.a).

Functionality and Market Context

• The system provides internet access to airline passengers during flights. (Compl. ¶29). The complaint alleges the system includes an onboard server, described by Gogo as an "ACPU-2," which manages connectivity. (Compl. ¶32.a, p. 10). When a passenger attempts to access the internet, the system initially redirects their browser to a "Gogo Portal," which serves as an interface for authentication and payment. (Compl. ¶¶ 32.a, 32.b). Upon successful authentication or payment, the system allegedly modifies its rule set to grant the passenger broader internet access for a specified duration. (Compl. ¶¶ 32.c, 32.d). The complaint includes a diagram from Gogo's website illustrating the onboard network hardware, including the ACPU-2 server and Wi-Fi antennas. (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,459 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "redirection server", as described in the patent within a general ISP environment (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 1), can be construed to read on the specific functionalities of an in-flight captive portal system like the Gogo ACPU-2 server. (Compl. p. 10).
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused system's transition from a "walled garden" state (access only to the Gogo Portal) to a full-access state upon payment constitutes "automatically modify[ing]... the rule set" in the manner contemplated by the patent. The complaint alleges this modification occurs (Compl. ¶32.c), but the court will need to determine if this operational change aligns with the patent's teaching of dynamically altering rules based on conditional logic. (e.g., ’459 Patent, col. 8:3-18).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "redirection server"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the claimed system. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused Gogo onboard server (ACPU-2) meets the definition of a "redirection server".
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes it as a server that "receives the redirection rule sets for each user from an authentication and accounting server" and "implements the redirection rule set for the user's address." This functional language could be argued to cover any server performing these roles, regardless of the specific network environment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 and the detailed description place the "redirection server" (208) logically between a "dial-up networking server" (102) and the "Internet" (110), in a configuration resembling a traditional ISP. (Compl. ¶19; ’459 Patent, Fig. 2). This context could support a narrower construction tied to ISP-type architectures.

• The Term: "automatically modify ... the rule set"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is key to the invention's purported novelty over "static" prior art. The dispute will likely center on what actions qualify as an "automatic modification."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes modification occurring after a user takes an action, such as filling out a questionnaire provided by an external server, after which an "authorization" is sent to the redirection server to delete a rule. (’459 Patent, col. 8:10-18). This could support an interpretation where a user-triggered event (like payment) leading to a change in access rights is an "automatic modification."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term could be construed more narrowly to require a modification that is programmatic and not merely a binary state change from "no access" to "access." The specification's examples involve dynamic changes like redirecting a user "every ten minutes" or disabling access after a prepaid time expires, which may suggest a more complex, ongoing process. (’459 Patent, col. 6:46-59; col. 7:65-8:2).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Alaska Airlines provides the Accused System to its passengers and provides "instructions on how to access the Wi-Fi network," intending for passengers to directly infringe the patent. (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Alaska Airlines had knowledge of the ’459 Patent at least as of the filing date of the original complaint (April 20, 2018) and that its continued infringing activities are in "wanton disregard of Linksmart's patent rights." (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 35). This appears to be a claim for post-suit willfulness.

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 within a terrestrial, dial-up ISP architecture, be construed to cover the self-contained, in-flight Gogo captive portal system? The outcome of this construction will significantly impact the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused system's act of granting full internet access upon user payment or authentication constitute an "automatic modification" of a "rule set" as that process is taught in the patent's specification, or is it fundamentally a different technical operation (e.g., a simple gating function) that falls outside the claim scope?
• Finally, a legal and factual question will be what constitutes the "rule set" in the accused system. The case may turn on whether the system's access control lists and routing policies meet the level of complexity and dynamic modifiability required by the claims as they are construed by the court.