DCT

2:18-cv-00862

Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Caesars Entertainment Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00862, D. Nev., 05/14/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s headquarters and principal place of business being located in the District of Nevada, and on alleged acts of infringement occurring within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hotel and resort guest internet access systems infringe a patent related to dynamically redirecting and controlling user data based on user-specific, modifiable rule sets.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to systems for managing network access, such as "captive portals," which allow providers to implement conditional or tiered access based on user-specific rules.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE46,459, is a reissued patent that stems from an original patent issued in 2004. The complaint notes that other companies have licensed the patented technology, a fact that may become relevant to damages calculations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-05-04 '459 Patent Priority Date
2004-08-17 Original Patent (No. 6,779,118) Issued
2017-06-27 Reissued Patent (No. RE46,459) Issued
2018-05-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459, "User specific automatic data redirection system," issued June 27, 2017 (Compl. ¶3).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological landscape where internet access control was static. Prior art methods like packet filtering or proxy servers required manual reprogramming by a network administrator to change access rules for a specific user or location (’459 Patent, col. 2:32-36, col. 2:65-3:3). This made it difficult to implement flexible, user-specific, and dynamic access policies.
    • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "redirection server" that sits at the gateway between a user and the internet (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). This server receives a user-specific "rule set" from an authentication server, correlated to the user’s temporary network address (’459 Patent, col. 4:26-33). The core innovation is that this rule set can be automatically and dynamically modified based on triggers like the passage of time, user actions (e.g., completing a form), or signals from external servers, without manual intervention by an administrator (’459 Patent, col. 8:3-23). This enables an access provider to enforce complex policies, such as redirecting a user to an advertisement page before granting full access or disabling access after a pre-paid time limit has expired.
    • Technical Importance: This approach provided a foundational architecture for what are now commonly known as "captive portal" systems, allowing venue owners and service providers to control and monetize internet access with a high degree of flexibility (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 27).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts "at least claim 91, among other claims" (Compl. ¶30).
    • 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 address.
      • The modification is a function of a combination of time, data transmitted to/from the user, or user access location.
      • The modification is also a function of time.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the "software and platform that Caesars has developed for hotel and other guests to access ISP services while visiting a hotel or resort," referred to as the "Accused System" (Compl. ¶30). This includes the guest Wi-Fi service at Caesars's Las Vegas properties (Compl. ¶31a).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The Accused System functions as a "captive portal" for guest internet access (Compl. ¶31b). When a guest connects, they are redirected to a pop-up screen where they must authenticate using their room number and last name (Compl. ¶31b, fn. 2).
    • The system offers tiered access: a "Basic" tier that is free for guests paying a resort fee and a "Premium" tier available for an additional charge (Compl. ¶31a, fn. 1).
    • This functionality allows Caesars to manage and monetize a critical guest amenity by creating different levels of service and controlling access based on a guest's payment status (Compl. ¶29). A screenshot in the complaint shows the pricing structure for the internet service (Compl. ¶31a).

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; Caesars's hotels provide a system that redirects guests to a login portal and grants different access tiers (e.g., Basic or Premium), which allegedly constitutes a user-specific rule set. ¶31a col. 4:26-33
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 system redirects users to a specific login portal regardless of the internet address the user initially requested, thereby controlling data passage. ¶31b col. 5:26-34
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; Upon successful login or payment, the server allegedly modifies the rule set to grant the user internet access. ¶31c col. 8:15-20
wherein the redirection server is configured to 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; The rule set is allegedly modified based on "data transmitted to or from the user" when a guest authenticates with their credentials. ¶31d col. 8:10-17
wherein the redirection server is configured to modify at least a portion of the rule set as a function of time... The system allegedly modifies the rule set to provide internet access for a limited time (e.g., one day), which is a modification based on time. ¶31e col. 7:65-8:2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 91 requires the server to "automatically modify" the rule set. A central question for the court will be whether the accused system's process—which involves user authentication followed by a change in access rights—satisfies the meaning of "automatic modification" in the context of the patent, or if it is a distinct, conventional authentication-authorization sequence.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "function of time" limitation is met by providing access for a "limited amount of time (e.g., one day)" (Compl. ¶31e). A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused system's underlying rule set is actively and dynamically modified by a timer, or if the time limit is merely a billing or account-duration parameter that does not involve modification of the rule set itself during the user's session. The complaint provides a screenshot of a pop-up screen instructing users on how to log in, which may be used as evidence of the user-interactive steps in the process (Compl. ¶31b, fn. 2).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "automatically modify"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from the static, manually-reprogrammed prior art cited in the patent. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system's response to a user's login credentials is an "automatic modification" or simply a standard authorization that falls outside the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes modification being triggered by external events, such as when a user fills out a questionnaire on a separate web server, which then sends an "authorization to the redirection server that deletes the redirection" rule (’459 Patent, col. 8:15-20). This could support an interpretation where "automatic" means any system-driven change in response to a predefined trigger event.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background repeatedly contrasts the invention with prior art requiring "manual reprogramming" (’459 Patent, col. 2:32-36). This may support an argument that "automatically" implies a process that is self-contained and does not depend on a multi-step, interactive process like user authentication to trigger the modification.
  • The Term: "rule set"
    • Context and Importance: The composition of the "rule set" is fundamental to the claim. The dispute will likely question whether the access permissions in the Caesars system constitute a "rule set" as contemplated by the patent, or are merely a simple account status flag.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the authentication server "communicates the rule set and the user's address to the redirection server" (’459 Patent, Abstract). This could support viewing any user-specific data that is transmitted to a gateway to control access as a "rule set."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides examples of rule sets containing explicit, command-line-style logic, such as http *.xyz.com=>www.us.com to redirect traffic, or listing specific services to be allowed or denied (’459 Patent, col. 6:20-35). This could support a narrower definition requiring the "rule set" to contain specific, structured filtering or redirection instructions, rather than a simple binary access state.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe based on Caesars providing instructions to its guests on how to use the Accused System, thereby causing them to directly infringe (Compl. ¶32).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Caesars having knowledge of the patent at least from the filing of the complaint and continuing to engage in the allegedly infringing activity. The complaint also makes a general allegation of pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness but does not provide specific facts, such as a prior notice letter, to support it (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "automatically modify," which was used to distinguish the invention from manually reprogrammed systems of the 1990s, be construed to cover a modern captive portal's standard authentication workflow, where a user's access level is changed after they provide credentials?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused system's use of a time-limited access period (e.g., 24 hours) involve a dynamic modification of a network "rule set" as a "function of time" as required by the claim, or is it a static account property that does not change during the session?
  • The case may also present an underlying question of technological translation: how will the court map the concepts of a 1998-vintage invention, described in the context of dial-up ISPs and early network protocols, onto the architecture of a modern, sophisticated hotel Wi-Fi system? The answer will heavily influence both claim construction and the ultimate infringement determination.