Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. United Continental Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03348, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants having a regular and established place of business in the district, including ground operations and facilities at Los Angeles International Airport and other regional airports, and having committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ in-flight Wi-Fi systems infringe a patent related to dynamically managing and redirecting user internet access based on user-specific rules.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that control user access to a network, such as the internet, by automatically enforcing rules that can change based on factors like time, user authentication, or payment.
• 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. The reissue patent claims priority to a 1998 provisional application. The complaint notes that other companies have licensed Linksmart's patented technology.

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 as relatively inflexible (Compl. ¶16; '459 Patent, col. 2:29-36). For instance, redirection was often controlled by remote web servers, not the local network provider, and security systems like firewalls or proxy servers used static rules that required manual reprogramming to change access permissions for specific users ('459 Patent, col. 2:6-11, 2:65-3:3). These systems were limited in their ability to dynamically alter a user's access rights during a live session ('459 Patent, col. 2:32-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system featuring a "redirection server" that sits between the user and the broader network (Compl. ¶14; '459 Patent, Fig. 2). This server receives a user-specific "rule set" from an authentication server when the user connects ('459 Patent, col. 4:26-34). It then enforces these rules, which can block, allow, or redirect the user's traffic. Crucially, the system is designed to allow for the dynamic modification of these rule sets based on various conditions, such as the expiration of a time limit or inputs from external servers, without requiring manual intervention for that user ('459 Patent, col. 8:3-23).
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled more sophisticated, flexible, and automated management of network access, facilitating business models like prepaid, time-limited internet access or forcing users to view advertisements or questionnaires before gaining full access (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 91, an independent system claim (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;
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • 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; and
  • 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.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused System" is identified as the in-flight internet access systems installed on United aircraft, including but not limited to systems that employ Gogo technology (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that when a passenger connects to the in-flight Wi-Fi, they are assigned a temporary network address and their web browser is forced to a service portal, described as the "Gogo Portal" (Compl. ¶32.a-b, p. 10). This portal acts as a gateway, requiring payment or other authentication before granting the passenger broader internet access (Compl. ¶32.c). The complaint alleges that access can be granted for a limited duration (e.g., 30 minutes) and that the system can be used to display targeted advertisements (Compl. ¶32.d-e, p. 11). The complaint includes a diagram from Gogo's website showing on-board hardware components. This visual depicts an "ACPU-2," which is described as a "next-generation onboard server unit" that communicates with Wi-Fi antennas on the aircraft (Compl. ¶32.a, p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,459 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "redirection server" described in the patent, which is depicted in the context of a traditional, ground-based Internet Service Provider (ISP) environment, can be read to cover a self-contained, onboard server on an aircraft that manages a local Wi-Fi network.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that multiple distinct claim limitations are met by the same accused functionality—providing time-limited access upon payment. Specifically, the allegations for modifying the rule set "as a function of some combination of time, data... or location" and modifying it "as a function of time" both rely on the example of a 30-minute access pass (Compl. ¶¶ 32.d, 32.e). This raises the question of whether the accused system performs the distinct functions required by each of these separate claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "redirection server"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the claimed system. The dispute may turn on whether the accused onboard "ACPU-2" server, which manages a captive portal for an in-flight Wi-Fi network, falls within the scope of this term as it is used and described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the redirection server functionally as being "logically located between the user's computer 100 and the network" and controlling the user's access ('459 Patent, col. 4:62-65). This functional description could support an interpretation not strictly limited to the specific ISP embodiment shown.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description consistently place the "redirection server" within a traditional ISP architecture, connected to a "dial-up networking server" and an "authentication accounting server" ('459 Patent, Fig. 2, col. 4:1-4). This context could support an argument that the term is limited to components within such an environment.

Term: "automatically modify"

• Context and Importance: The patent's claimed novelty rests on the server's ability to automatically change rules. The complaint alleges this is met when the system changes a user's access rights after they make a payment (Compl. ¶32.c). Whether a system's pre-programmed response to a direct user action (like payment) constitutes "automatic" modification will be a key issue.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts its dynamic system with prior art that required "manually reprogramming the device" ('459 Patent, col. 2:35-36). This suggests "automatic" could mean any modification that occurs without an administrator's manual intervention, which would include a system's programmed response to user input.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of modification based on the passage of time or a signal from an external server after a condition (like filling out a questionnaire) is met ('459 Patent, col. 7:65-8:2, 8:15-20). This could support a narrower definition that requires the modification to be triggered by a system-monitored event rather than a direct user command like "purchase access."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that United actively encourages and instructs its passengers to use the Accused System, thereby causing them to directly infringe the patent (Compl. ¶33).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges United had knowledge of the '459 patent "at least as of the filing date and/or service date of this Complaint" and that its continued infringement is willful and in "wanton disregard of Linksmart's patent rights" (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "redirection server", as described in the patent’s 1998-era ISP context, be construed to cover the modern, self-contained captive portal server operating on an aircraft? The outcome may depend on whether the term is defined by its function or by the specific technical environment in which it was originally described.
• A second key issue will be one of claim interpretation: The asserted claim includes multiple limitations describing the modification of a rule set based on different functions (e.g., as a function of "time," and as a function of a "combination of time, data... or location"). A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused system's single act of granting time-limited access upon payment is sufficient to meet each of these distinct limitations, or if this points to a mismatch in technical operation or raises issues of claim definiteness.