Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. WestJet Airlines Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Westjet Airlines Ltd. and Westjet Operations Corp. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00657, C.D. Cal., 04/20/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including ground operations at John Wayne / Orange County Airport and Los Angeles International Airport.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-flight Wi-Fi and entertainment system infringes a patent related to systems for user-specific, dynamic redirection of internet traffic.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing internet access by applying individualized, modifiable rule sets to user traffic at a network gateway, a key function for providing tiered or conditional access in captive portal environments.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissued patent, which means its claims were re-examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after the original patent had already issued. The complaint alleges that many companies have licensed the 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 control systems as being static and difficult to modify. For example, packet filtering rules at a firewall or proxy server had to be changed by manually reprogramming the device, and these rules were not typically user-specific (’459 Patent, col. 2:29-36, col. 2:65-3:3). Web-based redirection was controlled by the remote website, not the user's local internet service provider (ISP) (’459 Patent, col. 2:6-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system centered on a "redirection server" located within the local network (e.g., an ISP). When a user connects, an authentication server verifies the user and provides the redirection server with a user-specific "rule set" correlated to the user's temporarily assigned network address (’459 Patent, col. 4:20-33). This redirection server then processes the user's internet traffic according to this rule set, which can dynamically redirect, block, or allow data. Complaint Figure 2, taken from the patent, illustrates an ISP environment incorporating the patented redirection server (208) to filter user requests before they reach the internet (110) (Compl. ¶19, p. 6). Crucially, these rule sets can be modified automatically based on various conditions, such as time elapsed or a signal from an external server (’459 Patent, col. 3:7-13; col. 7:5-23).
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled more flexible and automated management of network access, facilitating business models such as prepaid time-limited internet access or requiring users to view advertisements or complete questionnaires before gaining unrestricted access (Compl. ¶20-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts that Defendant infringes "at least claim 91, among other claims" (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 91 requires:
  • 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 network address;
  • the redirection server is configured to automatically modify the rule set as a function of a combination of time, user data, or user location;
  • the redirection server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of time while correlated to the network address.
• The complaint effectively reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "WestJet Connect" in-flight entertainment and internet system (the "Accused System"), which utilizes Panasonic Avionics technology (Compl. ¶31, ¶32 p.10, footnote 2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused System provides passengers with complimentary entertainment and "pay per usage Internet" access on board aircraft (Compl. ¶32 p.10). The complaint alleges that when a passenger attempts to access the internet, a server on the aircraft redirects the user's web browser to a Wi-Fi service portal where they can authenticate or pay to gain access (Compl. ¶32.a). Access may be granted for a limited amount of time, such as 30 minutes (Compl. ¶32.d). This service is part of Panasonic's broader "Global Communications Service" for aviation (Compl. ¶32 p.10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,459 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent's specification is framed heavily in the context of a terrestrial, dial-up ISP environment from the late 1990s. A potential question is whether the architecture of the accused in-flight Wi-Fi system maps onto the specific server arrangement (dial-up server, authentication server, redirection server) described in the patent's embodiments.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that upon payment, the server "modifies its rule set" (Compl. ¶32.c). A technical question for the court may be whether this action constitutes an "automatic" modification as required by the claim, or if it is a user-initiated event triggering a pre-programmed change that does not meet the inventive concept of dynamic, automatic rule adjustment described in the patent.

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 depends on mapping this term to the server hardware and software within WestJet's in-flight system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a single, integrated server performing multiple functions can meet the limitation, or if a more distributed or specific architecture is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the redirection server as being "logically located between the user's computer 100 and the network" (’459 Patent, col. 4:63-65), which could support a functional, rather than strictly structural, definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment in Figure 2 depicts the "redirection server (208)" as a discrete component, distinct from the "authentication and accounting server (204)" and the "dial-up networking server (102)" (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support a narrower definition requiring a specific server structure.

• The Term: "automatically modify"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from the static prior art. The allegations of infringement hinge on the system's ability to change a user's access rules (e.g., from "redirect to portal" to "allow internet access") in a manner that is "automatic."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes an embodiment where an external website, after receiving information from a user, "sends an authorization to the redirection server that deletes the redirection" rule (’459 Patent, col. 7:15-18). This suggests that "automatic" can encompass modifications triggered by external systems without direct administrator intervention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discusses modifications based on internal system logic, such as a rule expiring after a set time or periodic redirection based on a timer (’459 Patent, col. 6:46-59, col. 7:65-8:2). This could be used to argue for a narrower definition that requires the modification to be initiated by the redirection system's own logic, not directly by a passenger's payment or login action.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that WestJet induces infringement by providing passengers with instructions on how to access the Wi-Fi network, thereby causing them to directly infringe the patent (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges WestJet has knowledge of the ’459 Patent "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" and that its continued infringement is willful (Compl. ¶34, ¶35). This establishes a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-suit infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the functions of the accused "WestJet Connect" system, an integrated in-flight service, be mapped onto the distinct server components ("redirection server", "authentication server") described in the patent's 1990s-era ISP-based embodiment, or is there a fundamental mismatch in system architecture?
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: does a rule-set modification triggered by a passenger's explicit action (e.g., payment for a Wi-Fi pass) satisfy the claim requirement for the server to "automatically modify" the rule set, or does that term require a modification initiated by the system's own internal logic, timers, or external server-to-server communication, independent of a direct user service request?