DCT
2:18-cv-02444
Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. DCI Design Communications LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC (California)
- Defendant: DCI-Design Communications LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP; Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02444, E.D.N.Y., 04/25/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant DCI having its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of New York, where it allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s internet access systems for the hospitality industry infringe a patent related to dynamically redirecting user internet traffic based on user-specific rules.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns gateway-level systems that control and redirect a user's internet access based on dynamic, modifiable rule sets, enabling services like tiered access or promotional content delivery.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, RE46,459, is a reissued patent. Reissue proceedings allow a patentee to correct errors in an original patent, which can sometimes involve changes to claim scope and may be a focus of discovery.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-05-04 | Priority Date for U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 |
| 2017-06-27 | U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 Issued |
| 2018-04-25 | Complaint Filed |
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 prior art internet redirection methods as static and lacking user-specific control at the local network gateway (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 23-25). For example, redirection was often handled by remote web servers after a user had already connected, or through packet filtering devices like firewalls that required manual reprogramming to change rules and were not user-specific (’459 Patent, col. 2:6-11, 2:29-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a "redirection server" located at the user's point of access, such as an ISP gateway (’459 Patent, Fig. 2). When a user connects and authenticates, this redirection server receives a user-specific "rule set" (’459 Patent, Abstract). It then intercepts the user's traffic and can block, allow, or redirect it based on these rules. Crucially, the system is designed to "automatically modify" these rules dynamically based on factors like time elapsed, user actions (e.g., completing a questionnaire), or data transmitted (’459 Patent, col. 7:8-23; Compl. ¶¶ 14, 21). This architecture is depicted in the patent's Figure 2, which introduces the redirection server (208) into the network flow, contrasting it with the prior art shown in Figure 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a more flexible and dynamic method for service providers to manage internet access, allowing for business models such as prepaid time-limited access, forcing users to view advertising, or offering tiered service levels (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 20-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 91, and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).
- 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 remains correlated to the network address.
- The redirection server is configured to automatically modify the rule set as a function of a 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 it is correlated to the network address.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused System" is identified as the software and platform DCI has developed to provide internet access for guests at hotels and other hospitality facilities, specifically its "Reach HSIA Solution" (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 32.a).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Reach HSIA Solution is alleged to be a system that manages internet access for hotel guests (Compl. ¶32.a). When a guest attempts to connect, the system is alleged to redirect their web browser to a "customized splash page" (Compl. ¶32.a). The complaint includes a marketing screenshot illustrating this feature (Compl. ¶32.a). Upon user action, such as payment or authentication with guest credentials, the system allegedly modifies its rule set to grant the user internet access, which may be for a limited time or at a specific service tier (Compl. ¶¶ 32.c-e). The complaint alleges DCI markets this as a core service for providing versatile and dependable networks in the hospitality industry (Compl. ¶32.a).
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; | DCI's Reach system provides a server that, when a user with a temporary network address connects, uses a rule set to initially force and redirect the user's browser to a hotel's customized splash page. A screenshot depicts the system's ability to create and manage these splash pages. | ¶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 server's rule set is configured to control user data by redirecting users to the splash page regardless of the internet address the user initially requested. | ¶32.b | col. 4:54-59 |
| wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically modify at least a portion of the rule set while the rule set is correlated...; | Upon a user's payment or login authentication at the splash page, the server allegedly modifies its rule set to allow that user to access the internet, for example by providing a purchased tier of access. | ¶32.c | col. 7:8-18 |
| 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; | Upon payment or authentication (data from the user), the rule set is modified to provide internet access for a limited time (e.g., one day). | ¶32.d | col. 7:65-8:2 |
| 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...; | Upon payment for a limited time of internet use, the rule set is modified by providing the guest access for that limited amount of time (e.g., one day). | ¶32.e | col. 5:46-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent is framed in the context of a dial-up "Internet Service Provider" (ISP) environment (’459 Patent, col. 4:50-53). A potential issue is whether DCI's localized hospitality internet system constitutes the type of "redirection server" architecture contemplated by the patent, or if the claim terms imply a broader ISP-level implementation.
- Technical Questions: Claim 91 requires the server to "automatically modify" the rule set. The complaint alleges this occurs when a user's payment or login triggers a change in access permissions (Compl. ¶32.c). A question for the court may be whether this "triggering" constitutes the claimed "modification," particularly as a "function of time," or if it is merely the activation of a pre-configured, static time limit.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "redirection server"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central component of the claimed system. Its construction will determine the scope of physical and logical architectures that can infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether DCI's integrated hospitality gateway is the same as the "redirection server" described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server's location functionally, stating it "is logically located between the user's computer 100 and the network" (’459 Patent, col. 4:63-65), which could support an interpretation that covers any device performing the claimed functions at that logical point.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description consistently depict the "redirection server" as a distinct component within an ISP's infrastructure, separate from the "authentication and accounting server" (’459 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:1-4). This may support an argument that the term requires a specific, multi-component architecture.
The Term: "automatically modify"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from the static prior art the patent sought to improve upon. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused system performs a dynamic "modification" as claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent gives an example where an external web server sends an "authorization to the redirection server that deletes the redirection" rule after a user fills out a questionnaire (’459 Patent, col. 7:15-18). This suggests any event-driven change, without direct manual reprogramming by an administrator, could be considered "automatic."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an "Auto-Navi component" of the authentication server that sends the rule set to the redirection server (’459 Patent, col. 4:26-32). An argument could be made that "automatically modify" requires a similar communication between distinct logical components, rather than a single server modifying its own internal state based on direct user input.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that DCI induces infringement by its customers (e.g., hotels) (Compl. ¶33). The basis for this claim is that DCI provides the Accused System along with "instructions, documentation, service and support" that direct customers to install and operate the system in a manner that directly infringes the ’459 Patent (Compl. ¶34). DCI's marketing materials are cited as evidence of intent (Compl. ¶35).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on DCI having knowledge of the ’459 Patent "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" and continuing its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶36). The complaint also makes a general allegation of pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness (Compl. ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "redirection server," as described in the patent's "ISP environment," be construed to cover the integrated guest internet gateway system used in the accused hospitality solutions?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's process of granting time-limited internet access upon guest authentication constitute an "automatic modification" of a rule set "as a function of time" in the manner required by Claim 91, or is there a technical mismatch between how the accused system functions and what the patent claims?