Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Emirates

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Emirates; and THE Emirates GROUP (Dubai)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03353, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight Wi-Fi systems infringe a patent related to dynamically redirecting and managing user internet access based on user-specific rule sets.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for mediating internet access, allowing service providers to control user traffic for purposes such as implementing tiered service levels, displaying advertisements, or enforcing time-based usage limits.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118. The complaint alleges that other companies have licensed the patented technology, though no specific agreements are detailed.

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 methods for controlling internet access as static and inflexible (Compl. ¶22). For example, redirection performed by HTML code was controlled by the remote web server, not the local service provider, while firewall or proxy server rules required manual reprogramming to be changed (Compl. ¶23-25; ’459 Patent, col. 2:5-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture featuring a "redirection server" placed between the user and the public internet (Compl. ¶19-20). This server receives user-specific "rule sets" from an authentication server, allowing it to dynamically block, allow, or redirect a user's data traffic. A key feature is that these rule sets can be automatically modified based on triggers like the passage of time, user actions, or signals from external servers, enabling more flexible and automated control over internet access (Compl. ¶21; ’459 Patent, col. 3:9-14, col. 8:3-23). The complaint includes a diagram from the patent illustrating the role of the redirection server (208) in mediating traffic between a user's computer (100) and the internet (110) (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for internet service providers to implement more sophisticated access control, such as tiered service plans or ad-supported access, by automating rule changes that previously required manual intervention (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 91 (Compl. ¶31).
• 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 the rule set while it is correlated to the temporary address.
  • The redirection server is configured to automatically modify the rule set as a function of a combination of time, data transmitted, or user location.
  • The redirection server is configured to automatically modify the rule set as a function of time.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’459 Patent (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Emirates' "Onboard Wi-Fi" system, which provides internet access to passengers and is identified in the complaint as the "Accused System" (Compl. ¶29, 31). The complaint alleges this system uses technology from Panasonic Avionics, including its Global Communications Service (GCS) and eXConnect product (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused System provides in-flight broadband internet connectivity to passengers (Compl. ¶32). The complaint alleges that when a passenger connects, a rule set initially redirects their browser to an inflight Wi-Fi service portal (Compl. ¶32.b).
• The system offers tiered access; for example, some passengers may receive a free amount of data (e.g., 20MB) for a limited time, with options to purchase plans for more data or longer use (Compl. ¶32.a). Upon payment or other authentication, the system allegedly modifies its rule set to grant the passenger broader internet access, potentially for a limited duration (Compl. ¶32.c, d, e).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’459 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "redirection server," as described in the patent’s 1998-era ISP context, can be construed to read on the modern, integrated in-flight hardware and software architecture of the Accused System.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegations for elements [d] and [e] of Claim 91 hinge on the system modifying a rule set "as a function of time." A question for the court will be whether a one-time modification that grants a period of time-limited access is the same as a rule set being modified as a function of time itself, as the claim language requires. The duplication between elements [d] and [e] concerning time-based modification may also become a focus of the dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "redirection server"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether the accused Panasonic Avionics hardware falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specific architecture involving distinct authentication and redirection servers, which may differ from the integrated nature of the accused system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The complaint alleges it is met by the "server hardware that Panasonic Avionics provides as part of its system" (Compl. ¶32.a).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the "redirection server" (208) as a distinct component that receives rule sets from a separate "authentication accounting server" (204), suggesting a specific multi-component architecture (’459 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:20-34).

• The Term: "automatically modify"

  • Context and Importance: This term captures the invention’s asserted departure from the "static" prior art. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system's method of granting access constitutes "automatic modification" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts its invention with systems requiring "manually reprogramming" (’459 Patent, col. 2:35-36), suggesting any non-manual change could be considered "automatic." The complaint alleges this is met when the server modifies a rule set upon passenger payment or login (Compl. ¶32.c).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of modification, such as in response to a completed questionnaire sent from an external server or an expired time limit (’459 Patent, col. 8:10-19; col. 7:65-8:2). A party could argue this requires a more complex, conditional modification logic rather than a simple, one-time change triggered by a login or payment event.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Emirates induces infringement by "actively... instructing... Emirates passengers who use the Accused System... on how to access the Wi-Fi network" (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Emirates had knowledge of the ’459 Patent at least as of the complaint's filing date and that its continued infringement is willful (Compl. ¶34-35, 41).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "redirection server", as defined within the patent's 1990s-era ISP architecture, be construed to cover the modern, integrated hardware and software of the accused in-flight connectivity system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused system's method for granting tiered or time-limited access upon a user action (like payment) satisfy the specific claim requirement that the rule set be "automatically modif[ied]... as a function of" variables such as time, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the system’s actual operation and the dynamic, conditional rule modification described in the patent?