DCT
2:18-cv-00864
Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Golden Nugget Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Golden Nugget, Inc. (Delaware/Nevada) and Landry's Inc.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat; Borghese Legal, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00864, D. Nev., 05/14/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Golden Nugget, Inc.'s alleged residence and regular and established place of business in the District of Nevada, and Landry's Inc.'s operation of properties within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hospitality guest Internet access systems infringe a patent related to dynamically and automatically redirecting user data based on user-specific rules.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns network access control systems that manage user internet sessions by intercepting traffic and applying rules, a foundational technology for public and paid Wi-Fi services.
- Key Procedural History: The Asserted Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118 and claims priority to a 1998 provisional application. The complaint notes that other companies have licensed Linksmart's patented technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-05-04 | '459 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application Filing) |
| 2017-06-27 | '459 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-05-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 E - User specific automatic data redirection system
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 E, "User specific automatic data redirection system," issued June 27, 2017. (Compl. ¶3; ’459 Patent, cover).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art internet access systems as either "passive," where a user's request goes directly to the intended destination without mediation, or reliant on static redirection methods. (Compl. ¶21). These prior methods, such as packet filtering via firewalls or proxy servers, were limited because their rule sets were static and could only be changed through manual reprogramming by a network administrator. (’459 Patent, col. 2:29-36, 2:65-3:3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "redirection server" into the network architecture that dynamically manages a user's internet access based on a personalized "rule set." (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 25). This rule set is retrieved from a database upon user authentication and sent to the redirection server, which can then block, allow, or redirect the user's traffic. (’459 Patent, col. 4:19-34). Critically, the system is designed to "automatically modify" the rule set during a user's session based on various triggers, such as the passage of time or the user completing a specific action (e.g., filling out a questionnaire). (Compl. ¶26; ’459 Patent, col. 8:3-23). The complaint includes Figure 2 from the patent, which depicts a network architecture containing the novel redirection server positioned between the user's connection point and the broader internet. (Compl. p. 6).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled more flexible and automated control over internet access, facilitating business models such as tiered access, time-limited sessions, and displaying advertisements or questionnaires before granting full access. (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 91. (Compl. ¶36).
- 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 at least a portion of 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 to/from the user, or user location.
- The redirection server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of time while it is correlated to the temporary address.
- The complaint states that discovery may reveal infringement of additional claims. (Compl. ¶36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused System" is identified as the "software and platform that Golden Nugget has developed for hotel and other hospitality guests to access ISP services." (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused System is used to provide and manage Internet access for guests at Golden Nugget properties. (Compl. ¶34). Its functionality is described as redirecting a user's web browser to a "Wi-Fi service portal" where the user can enter login credentials or purchase standard or faster Internet access. (Compl. ¶37(a)). Upon authentication or payment, the system allegedly modifies its rules to grant the user internet access for a limited period of time (e.g., one day). (Compl. ¶37(c)-(e)).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’459 Patent 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 system at Golden Nugget properties provides guest internet access and allegedly uses a redirection server with a programmed rule set that can redirect a user's browser to a Wi-Fi portal for login or purchase. | ¶37(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 server that acts as the user's gateway to the Internet is allegedly configured to redirect users to the portal regardless of the requested Internet address, thereby controlling data flow. | ¶37(b) | col. 5:26-40 |
| 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 a user's payment or login authentication, the server allegedly modifies its rule set to allow that user to access the Internet. | ¶37(c) | col. 7:65-8:2 |
| wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically 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 | Upon payment or authentication, a portion of the rule set is allegedly modified to provide the user with Internet access for a limited amount of time (e.g., one day). | ¶37(d) | col. 8:3-9 |
| 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 temporarily assigned network address | For example, upon payment for a limited time of Internet use, a portion of the rule set is allegedly modified by providing the user with Internet access for a limited amount of time (e.g., one day). | ¶37(e) | col. 7:65-8:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused "Wi-Fi service portal" is a "redirection server." (Compl. ¶37(a)). A potential issue is whether this type of captive portal, which typically operates by intercepting HTTP/DNS requests for authentication, meets the technical definition of the "redirection server" described in the patent, which is depicted as a core network component that filters IP packets. (’459 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:64-67).
- Technical Questions: Claim 91 requires the server to "automatically modify" the rule set. The complaint alleges this occurs when a user pays or authenticates, which changes the rule to allow access for a limited time. (Compl. ¶37(c)-(e)). This raises the question of whether a one-time change to grant access constitutes the dynamic "modification" described in the patent, or if it is merely the initial application of a static, time-limited rule.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "redirection server"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether the accused hotel "Wi-Fi service portal" falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation dictates whether a modern captive portal system is equivalent to the specific ISP-level architecture disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention broadly as a "data redirection system for redirecting user's data based on a stored rule set," which could be argued to cover any server performing this function. (’459 Patent, Abstract).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the redirection server as being "logically located between the user's computer 100 and the network" and controlling the user's access to the network by processing IP packets. (’459 Patent, col. 4:64-67). Figure 2 shows it as a distinct component ("208") in an ISP architecture, separate from the gateway, which could support a narrower definition than a typical web-based captive portal.
The Term: "automatically modify at least a portion of the rule set"
- Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from prior art static systems. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused system's act of granting access after payment is an "automatic modification."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes an embodiment where, after a user fills out a questionnaire, an external server sends an "authorization to the redirection server that deletes the redirection" rule, which could be argued as analogous to granting access after payment. (’459 Patent, col. 8:14-18). This suggests a system-initiated change based on user input qualifies as "automatic modification."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides examples of more dynamic changes, such as periodic redirection or disabling access after a time limit has expired, suggesting "modify" implies an ongoing capability during the session, not just a one-time permission grant at the start. (’459 Patent, col. 6:46-59, col. 7:65-8:2). An argument could be made that setting a 24-hour access window is not "modifying" the rule, but rather defining the initial rule's parameters.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Golden Nugget provides instructions to guests on how to access the Wi-Fi network, thereby encouraging them to perform the allegedly infringing acts. (Compl. ¶38).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts willfulness based on knowledge of the patent "at least by the filing date and/or service date of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶38). It also makes a conclusory allegation of "wanton disregard of Linksmart's patent rights." (Compl. ¶40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent’s term "redirection server," which is described in the context of an ISP-level network component that processes IP packets, be construed to cover the accused hotel Wi-Fi "service portal," which typically functions as a web-based captive portal for user authentication?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's one-time act of granting time-limited internet access upon user payment or login constitute the dynamic, "automatic modification" of a rule set during an active session as required by the claims, or is it functionally equivalent to the application of a single, static rule with a predefined expiration?