Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. Hospitality Network LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Hospitality Network, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat; Borghese Legal, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01386, D. Nev., 09/18/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant has its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in Las Vegas and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi solutions for the hospitality industry infringe a patent related to systems that dynamically manage and redirect user internet traffic based on user-specific rules.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns network-level control over internet access, allowing providers to implement features like tiered service, timed access, and initial redirection to specific web pages (e.g., login portals or advertisements).
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118. The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent at least as early as September 2018, based on prior infringement litigation Plaintiff filed against Defendant's customers. The patent expired in April 2019, limiting any potential damages to past infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-05-04	’459 Patent Priority Date
2004-08-17	Original Patent (No. 6,779,118) Issue Date
c. 2017-04-01	Plaintiff allegedly filed infringement complaints against Defendant's clients
2017-06-27	Reissue Patent (’459 Patent) Issue Date
2018-09-27	Date by which Defendant allegedly had knowledge of the ’459 Patent
2019-04-21	’459 Patent Expiration Date
2020-09-18	Complaint Filing Date

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 systems as static and inflexible (Compl. ¶24). Redirection of users was typically handled by remote web servers, not the local internet service provider (ISP) gateway, and any network-level packet filtering rules at the gateway required manual reprogramming by a network administrator to be changed (’459 Patent, col. 2:6-11, 2:29-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a "redirection server" located within the local network (e.g., at the ISP) that sits between the user and the public internet (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). When a user connects, an authentication server sends a user-specific "rule set" to this redirection server, which then dynamically controls that user's traffic by blocking, allowing, or redirecting it based on the rules (’459 Patent, col. 4:16-34). Crucially, these rules can be automatically and dynamically modified based on events like the passage of time or user actions, without manual intervention (’459 Patent, col. 8:3-18).
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled more sophisticated and dynamic management of internet access, facilitating business models such as prepaid timed access or forcing users to view advertisements or fill out questionnaires before gaining broader access (Compl. ¶20, ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims, including at least independent claim 91 (Compl. ¶31).
• Independent Claim 91 of the ’459 Patent recites:
  • A redirection server programmed with a user's rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address;
  • The rule set containing 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 modification is a function of a combination of time, data transmitted, or user access location; and
  • The redirection server is configured to modify the rule set as a function of time.
• The complaint notes that further discovery may reveal infringement of additional claims (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Defendant's "Comprehensive Wi-Fi Solutions" and related systems and methods, referred to as the "Accused Systems" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint identifies the guest WiFi system provided at Caesars Palace as a specific example (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Systems provide high-speed internet services for the hospitality industry (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges these systems include features such as "Custom splash pages" and "Custom tiered billing and bandwidth options" (Compl. ¶22, ¶31).
• These features allegedly control user access by, for example, first directing a user to a specific page (a splash page) or by providing different levels of service (tiered billing) based on user selection or payment, which suggests the application of dynamic rules (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website, which lists 'Comprehensive Wi-Fi Solutions' including 'Custom splash pages' and 'Custom tiered billing and bandwidth options' (Compl. p. 8).

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;	Defendant's Accused Systems provide guest Wi-Fi access where users are assigned temporary access credentials and are subject to rules, such as being directed to a "Custom splash page."	¶22, ¶32	col. 5:2-6
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 "Custom splash pages" and "Custom tiered billing and bandwidth options" are alleged to be functions that control user data access, either by initial redirection or by limiting bandwidth based on a billing tier.	¶22, ¶31	col. 6:15-19
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;	The system's alleged ability to transition a user from a splash page to general internet access, or to change service levels based on tiered billing, suggests a modification of the rules governing that user's connection.	¶22, ¶31	col. 6:50-58
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;	The system allegedly modifies rules based on user actions (e.g., clearing a splash page, which is a "location the user accesses") or based on time (for timed access tiers).	¶22, ¶31	col. 8:10-18
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.	The "Custom tiered billing" feature allegedly includes timed access options (e.g., a 24-hour pass), which would require the system to modify the rule set (e.g., terminate access) upon expiration of the time period.	¶22, ¶31	col. 7:65-8:2

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant’s modern Wi-Fi gateway architecture, which provides features like "splash pages," performs the functions of the claimed "redirection server," a term originating from a 1998-priority-date patent describing a distinct server in an ISP environment.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on high-level product features like "tiered billing." A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system actually implements these features by "automatically modify[ing]" a "rule set" as claimed, versus using a different underlying technical mechanism (e.g., assigning a user to a different, pre-defined static profile).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "redirection server"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining if the patent's claims, rooted in a late-1990s ISP architecture, read on the defendant's modern, integrated Wi-Fi systems.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server functionally as being "logically located between the user's computer... and the network" and performing the central task of controlling "the user's access to the network" (’459 Patent, col. 4:63-66). This may support an interpretation that covers any network device performing these functions, regardless of its specific hardware form factor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict the "redirection server" (208) as a component architecturally distinct from the "dial-up networking server" (102) and "authentication and accounting server" (204) (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an argument that the term is limited to such a separate device and does not cover a modern, integrated gateway that may combine these functions.

• The Term: "automatically modify... the rule set"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the invention's dynamic nature and is a key point of differentiation from the prior art. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system's operation constitutes "automatic modification."
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent gives an example where after a user accesses a required web page, the redirection rule is removed and "the user if free to use the web unmolested" (’459 Patent, col. 7:54-57). This may support a reading where any system-initiated change to a user's access rights based on a triggering event qualifies as an automatic modification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes an external server sending "an authorization to the redirection server that deletes the redirection... from the rule set" (’459 Patent, col. 8:15-18). This could be interpreted to require an active alteration of an existing data structure ("the rule set"), rather than simply de-activating one rule set and activating a different, pre-existing one.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides its systems to clients and provides instructions to clients, their employees, and guests on how to use the network, with the intent that they perform infringing acts (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’459 Patent and its infringement. This allegation is based on infringement lawsuits Plaintiff filed against Defendant's clients (Caesars Entertainment and Wynn Resorts) around April 2017, and on direct communications and legal arrangements allegedly involving Defendant by September 27, 2018 (Compl. ¶33, ¶34, ¶40). The complaint alleges Defendant's continued infringement thereafter was willful (Compl. ¶40).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "redirection server," as depicted in the patent’s 1990s-era ISP architecture, be construed to encompass the integrated hardware and software of a modern hospitality Wi-Fi gateway?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused system's implementation of "tiered billing" and "splash pages" rely on "automatically modify[ing] a... rule set" as the patent claims, or does it achieve a similar commercial result through a different, non-infringing technical method?
• A third central question will concern willfulness: given that the patent expired in 2019, the case focuses on past damages. The factual inquiry into whether Defendant was aware of its alleged infringement via notice to its customers as early as 2017 will be critical to Plaintiff's attempt to obtain enhanced damages.