Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. British Airways PLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: British Airways, Plc. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03352, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight Wi-Fi service, which uses Gogo technology, infringes a patent related to systems for dynamically managing and redirecting user data based on a modifiable set of rules.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns "captive portal" systems that control user access to a network, initially redirecting users to a specific page for authentication, payment, or advertising before granting broader access.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118, which was subject to a second examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The complaint alleges the technology was developed in the late 1990s by AuriQ Systems, Inc., a predecessor-in-interest.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,459, “User specific automatic data redirection system,” issued June 27, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for controlling internet access, such as firewalls and proxy servers, as being static and inflexible (Compl. ¶¶23-25; ’459 Patent, col. 2:29-36, 2:65-3:3). These systems required manual reprogramming to change access rules and were limited in their ability to apply different rules to different users or to change rules during a user’s session (Compl. ¶24; ’459 Patent, col. 2:32-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "redirection server" that sits between a user and a public network (e.g., the Internet) (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). When a user connects and authenticates, the system sends a user-specific "rule set" to the redirection server, which then controls that user's traffic (’459 Patent, col. 4:20-34). The core innovation is that the redirection server can automatically modify this rule set during the session based on triggers like elapsed time, user actions, or signals from other servers, allowing for dynamic and conditional access control (’459 Patent, col. 8:3-23).
• Technical Importance: This system enabled sophisticated, automated access control models, such as prepaid time-limited access or forcing users to view advertisements or fill out questionnaires before gaining full network access (’459 Patent, col. 7:65-8:2, 8:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint provides an exemplary infringement analysis for independent claim 91 (Compl. ¶32).
• The essential elements of independent claim 91 include:
  • A "redirection server" programmed with a user's rule set correlated to a temporary 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.
  • The modification is a function of a "combination of time, data transmitted to or from the user, or location the user accesses."
  • The modification is also a function of "time."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Product Identification: The "Accused System" is the in-flight Wi-Fi internet access service offered to passengers on British Airways aircraft, which utilizes technology from Gogo Inc. (Compl. ¶¶29, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

• Functionality and Market Context: The system uses an onboard server, identified as an "ACPU-2," to manage passenger connections (Compl. ¶32.a). When a passenger first connects, the system redirects their web browser to a "Gogo Portal" for service selection and payment, regardless of the internet address the passenger initially requested (Compl. ¶32.b). Upon an event such as payment or authentication, the system modifies the user's access to allow a connection to the broader internet, often for a limited duration (e.g., 30 minutes) (Compl. ¶¶32.c, 32.e). The complaint characterizes this service as a "core service" for the airline (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’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 dial-up Internet Service Provider (’459 Patent, Fig. 2), can be construed to read on the accused modern, self-contained in-flight Wi-Fi hardware system (Compl. ¶32.a).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the server "modifies its rule set" (Compl. ¶32.c), but does not detail how. A key factual question will be whether the accused system dynamically alters the logic of a rule, or if it merely switches a user's status, causing a different, pre-existing rule (e.g., "allow all traffic") to be applied. The distinction is critical for meeting the "automatically modify" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "redirection server"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central component of the claimed system. The infringement case depends on whether the accused Gogo ACPU-2 server falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the server functionally as a component that is "logically located between the user's computer...and the network, and controls the user's access to the network" (’459 Patent, col. 4:65-67). This functional language may support an interpretation that is not limited to a specific hardware or network architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s preferred embodiment depicts the "redirection server" (208) as a distinct component within a traditional dial-up ISP architecture, closely integrated with a separate "authentication accounting server" (204) and "dial-up networking server" (102) (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an argument that the term is limited to the specific environment disclosed.

• The Term: "automatically modify"

  • Context and Importance: This term captures the dynamic nature of the invention, which distinguishes it from the static prior art. Whether the accused system "modifies" a rule set or simply swaps between different pre-defined rule sets will be a critical point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example where an external server sends "an authorization to the redirection server that deletes the redirection to the questionnaire web site from the rule set" (’459 Patent, col. 8:15-18). This suggests that adding or removing a rule from a set constitutes "modification," supporting a more functional interpretation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing argument could be that "modify" requires altering the substantive logic of an existing rule itself, rather than simply de-selecting one rule and selecting another from a static library of rules. The complaint does not provide sufficient technical detail on the Gogo system's operation to determine which action occurs.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that British Airways provides the accused system to its passengers and gives them instructions on how to use it to access the Wi-Fi network (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the asserted patent "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" and its continued infringement despite this knowledge (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," which is rooted in the patent’s description of a 1998-era dial-up ISP architecture, be construed to cover the modern, integrated server hardware used in the accused in-flight Wi-Fi system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system's process of granting internet access after payment involve "automatically modify[ing]" a "rule set," as required by Claim 91, or does it operate by switching a user between different, static states of permission in a way that falls outside the claimed function? The answer will depend on technical evidence regarding the internal workings of the Gogo system.