DCT
8:18-cv-00654
Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Gogo Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Gogo Inc. and Gogo LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00654, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Gogo having a regular and established place of business in the district, as well as committing alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight internet access systems infringe a reissued patent related to user-specific, dynamic data redirection.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for managing network access by automatically redirecting users and modifying access rules based on user-specific criteria, a foundational concept for modern captive portal and monetized Wi-Fi services.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE46,459, is a reissued version of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118, which issued from an application filed in 1999 and claims priority to a 1998 provisional application. Reissue proceedings can alter claim scope and create intervening rights defenses, which may become relevant as the case proceeds.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-05-04 | Earliest Priority Date (U.S. Provisional App. 60/084,014) |
| 2017-06-27 | Issue Date of U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 |
| 2018-04-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 - "User specific automatic data redirection system"
- Patent Identification: 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 a technical landscape where internet traffic redirection was static and inflexible (Compl. ¶¶23-25). Prior art systems, like firewalls or proxy servers, had to be manually reprogrammed to change access rules, and these rules typically applied broadly rather than to specific users dynamically ('459 Patent, col. 2:29-36, 2:65-3:3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system featuring a "redirection server" that sits between the user and the public network. This server receives a unique, individualized "rule set" for each user upon authentication ('459 Patent, col. 4:29-38). The key innovation is that the redirection server can automatically and dynamically modify these rule sets during a user's session based on various factors, such as the user's actions (e.g., completing a questionnaire), the passage of time, or payment for access ('459 Patent, col. 8:4-23, 7:65-8:2). This allows for flexible and automated control over each user's network access.
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for service providers to implement sophisticated, monetized access control, such as timed sessions or tiered service levels, which were difficult to achieve with the static tools of the time ('459 Patent, col. 7:10-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims, focusing on independent claim 91 as an exemplary claim (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 91 of the ’459 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- 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 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 correlated to the temporary address.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims through discovery (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused System" is identified as the software and platform Gogo develops and operates to provide in-flight internet access to airline passengers (Compl. ¶31). This includes onboard hardware components like the "ACPU-2" server (Compl. ¶32.a).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that when a passenger connects to the in-flight Wi-Fi, the Accused System intercepts their request and redirects them to a "Gogo Portal" (Compl. ¶32.a, ¶32.b). This portal serves as a gateway where the passenger can authenticate or purchase a timed internet access plan (e.g., a 30-minute pass) (Compl. ¶32.d, ¶32.e). Upon successful payment or authentication, the system allegedly modifies its rules to grant that specific passenger broader internet access for the purchased duration (Compl. ¶32.c). The complaint provides a diagram of an aircraft equipped with an onboard server (ACPU2) and Wi-Fi antennas, illustrating the physical components of the accused system (Compl. p. 10). Gogo is positioned as a key provider of these services for commercial airlines (Compl. ¶¶29, 35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE46,459 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 91) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a redirection server programmed with a user's rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address | The onboard server (e.g., "ACPU-2") is alleged to be the redirection server. It is programmed with a rule set that initially redirects a user, who has a temporarily assigned network address from the Wi-Fi system, to the Gogo Portal. | ¶32.a | col. 4:1-4 |
| 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 | The rule set's function of redirecting a passenger to the Gogo Portal, regardless of the requested internet address, is alleged to be a function that controls data passing between the user and the public network. | ¶32.b | col. 4:51-54 |
| 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 ... address | Upon a passenger's payment or other login authentication, the onboard server allegedly modifies its rule set to allow that passenger to access the Internet, constituting an automatic modification. | ¶32.c | col. 8:4-23 |
| wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically modify... as a function of some combination of time, data transmitted to or from the user... | The rule set is allegedly modified based on user data (payment or credentials) and time (providing access for a limited duration, e.g., 30 minutes), which the complaint asserts meets the "combination" requirement. | ¶32.d | col. 4:55-62 |
| 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 ... address | Upon payment for a limited time of internet use, the rule set is allegedly modified to provide access for that specific duration (e.g., 30 minutes), which is alleged to be a modification "as a function of time." | ¶32.e | col. 7:65-8:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "redirection server", as described in the context of a 1998-era dial-up ISP architecture, can be construed to read on a modern, distributed, in-flight system that uses an onboard aircraft server. The defense may argue the technologies are non-analogous.
- Technical Questions: Claim 91 requires modification based on "some combination of" factors including time, user data, or location. The court may need to determine if the Gogo system's alleged logic—modifying access based on a payment event and for a set duration—satisfies this specific "combination" limitation, or if these are functionally separate conditions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "redirection server"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central apparatus of the invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Gogo’s onboard hardware (e.g., the ACPU-2) and associated software falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's embodiments depict a server in a terrestrial, dial-up ISP environment, creating a potential point of contrast with the accused in-flight system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the server's role functionally as being "logically located between the user's computer... and the network" and performing tasks like controlling access and implementing rule sets ('459 Patent, col. 4:65-68). This functional language could support an interpretation that is not tied to a specific physical architecture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment, illustrated in Figure 2, shows the "redirection server" (208) as a distinct component within a traditional ISP architecture, connected to a "dial-up networking server" (102) and an "authentication and accounting server" (204). This could support an argument that the term is limited to this specific context.
The Term: "automatically modify"
- Context and Importance: This term captures the dynamic nature of the invention, which distinguishes it from prior art static firewalls requiring manual reprogramming. The dispute will likely center on whether the Gogo system's response to an external event (like a payment confirmation) qualifies as "automatic modification" as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example where a rule set is modified after a web site receives "acceptable data in all required fields" of a questionnaire from a user ('459 Patent, col. 8:10-20). This suggests that "automatic" means "without direct intervention by a network administrator," which would likely encompass a system that responds to user-initiated payment events.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts its invention with prior art that required manual reprogramming ('459 Patent, col. 2:33-36). A party could argue that "automatic" implies a modification triggered by logic wholly internal to the redirection system itself (e.g., a simple timer), not one contingent on complex external inputs from a separate payment processing system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶33). The factual basis includes Gogo's alleged acts of making and selling the Accused System to airline customers, and providing documentation, installation support, and operational instructions that direct the airlines (the direct infringers) to operate the system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶34-36).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Gogo’s knowledge of the ’459 Patent "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge, which frames the willfulness claim as being based on conduct occurring after the lawsuit was initiated.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the claim terms of the ’459 Patent, which arose from a 1998-era dial-up internet context, be construed to cover the architecture and operation of a modern, mobile, in-flight Wi-Fi system? The patent's reissue status may add complexity to this question.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the Gogo system’s method of managing user access—triggered by events like payment and resulting in timed access—perform the specific functions required by Claim 91, particularly the limitation requiring modification as a "function of some combination of time, data transmitted to or from the user, or location the user accesses"?