Bascom Global Internet Services Inc v. AT&T Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AT&T Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:14-cv-03942, N.D. Tex., 11/06/2014
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's principal place of business being located within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network-based security and web-filtering services infringe a patent related to remote, customizable internet content filtering.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for an internet service provider to filter content for its users, allowing for individualized control over access to websites and other online material.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit at least since October 16, 2008, when Defendant cited the patent in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of its own, unrelated patent. This allegation forms the basis for the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1997-03-19	'606 Patent Priority Date
1999-11-16	'606 Patent Issue Date
2008-10-16	AT&T allegedly references '606 Patent in an Information Disclosure Statement
2014-11-06	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606 - "Method and System for Content Filtering Information Retrieved from an Internet Computer Network"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606, "Method and System for Content Filtering Information Retrieved from an Internet Computer Network," issued November 16, 1999.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes two key problems with prior art content-filtering systems. First, filters installed on a user's local computer ("client-side") are susceptible to being "modified or thwarted by a computer literate end-user" and are difficult to deploy and maintain across many machines (’606 Patent, col. 2:1-6). Second, existing server-based filtering systems often utilized "a single set of filtering criteria for all of their controlled-access end-users," which is not appropriate for all users and lacks individual customizability (’606 Patent, col. 2:40-46).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the content filtering function is performed on a remote Internet Service Provider (ISP) server, rather than on the user's local computer. This remote server associates individual user accounts with specific, customizable filtering schemes and sets of filtering elements (e.g., lists of allowed or blocked websites), thereby providing individualized filtering that is difficult for the end-user to tamper with or circumvent (’606 Patent, col. 2:51-65; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: This server-side, customizable approach addressed a need for centralized, tamper-resistant internet filtering that could still be tailored to the policies of different users, such as for corporate employees or for different children within a family account (’606 Patent, col. 5:31-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’606 Patent are asserted. The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative system claim.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a content filtering system comprising:
  • A local client computer generating network access requests for an individual network account.
  • At least one filtering scheme.
  • A plurality of sets of logical filtering elements.
  • A remote ISP server that associates the network account with a filtering scheme and a set of filtering elements.
  • The remote ISP server receives the access requests and executes the associated filtering scheme using the associated logical filtering elements.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as AT&T's "Secure Network Gateway" service, "Web Security" service, "Cloud Web Security Service," "policy control functionality for wireless-device services, and/or other web-filtering and security offerings" (collectively, the "Accused Offerings") (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Offerings are "web-filtering and security offerings" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further technical detail about the specific architecture or operation of these services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint's infringement allegations are high-level and do not contain a claim chart or detailed mapping of product features to claim limitations. The following summary is based on the general allegations in the complaint.

'606 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a content filtering system ... comprising: a local client computer generating network access requests for said individual controlled access network accounts;	AT&T customers use computers and other devices to access the internet through AT&T's network.	¶8	col. 6:63-65
at least one filtering scheme;	The web-filtering and security rules provided by the Accused Offerings, which determine how to handle internet traffic.	¶8	col. 3:1-3
a plurality of sets of logical filtering elements;	The user-specific or account-specific lists (e.g., of allowed or blocked sites) and other criteria used by the filtering rules.	¶8	col. 3:3-6
a remote ISP server coupled to said client computer and said Internet computer network, said ISP server associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements,	AT&T's network servers that provide the Accused Offerings are alleged to associate individual customer accounts with specific filtering policies and settings.	¶8	col. 4:11-14
said ISP server further receiving said network access requests from said client computer and executing said associated filtering scheme utilizing said associated set of logical filtering elements.	AT&T's servers are alleged to receive internet requests from customers and apply the associated filtering policies to allow or block the requests.	¶8	col. 5:1-6

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether AT&T's modern "Cloud Web Security" and other services qualify as a "remote ISP server" within the meaning of the patent, which was filed in 1997. The parties may dispute whether the patent's description of an ISP providing basic internet access (’606 Patent, col. 4:1-3) can be read to cover the architecture of Defendant’s allegedly infringing services.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the Accused Offerings operate. A key point of contention will likely be whether discovery reveals that the Accused Offerings in fact perform the claimed step of "associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements," or if they operate on a different technical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "remote ISP server"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed invention, as the core innovation is moving customizable filtering to this specific location. The applicability of the patent to AT&T's modern, potentially distributed cloud services will depend heavily on the construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either confine the patent to 1990s-era ISP architectures or allow it to cover a broader range of modern network service providers.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the server as being coupled to the internet via a "high speed connection ... such as a T-3 line" (’606 Patent, col. 4:3-5), and the system can be implemented in a distributed architecture across multiple servers (’606 Patent, FIG. 7). This may support an interpretation covering any remote, network-level service provider.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently describes the server in the context of a traditional ISP that processes "log-in request[s]" from subscribers to provide primary internet access (’606 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 4:35-38). This could support a narrower definition limited to entities acting as the primary internet access provider, as opposed to an overlay security service.

The Term: "associating"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the crucial link between a specific user account and its unique filtering rules. The infringement case hinges on whether AT&T's system performs this specific act of linking. The construction will determine the type of technical evidence required to prove infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify a particular mechanism for association, stating only that "Individual end-user accounts are matched by the ISP server to the filtering scheme and the individualized set of database filtering elements associated with the end-user account" (’606 Patent, col. 3:3-7). This suggests any form of logical connection would suffice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments describe a process where, upon log-in, the system "identifies the filtering scheme ... and the filtering elements ... associated with the end-user" (’606 Patent, col. 4:44-47). An argument could be made that this requires a specific, stored profile for each account that is actively looked up and applied, potentially excluding systems that apply rules more dynamically or based on group policies.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that AT&T induces infringement by "actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing its customers to use the Accused Offerings in a manner that infringes" through "promotional and marketing materials, product manuals, and instructional materials" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶8).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on AT&T's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’606 Patent. This knowledge is alleged to stem from AT&T's citation of the ’606 Patent in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of its own patent, with the alleged knowledge dating back to at least October 16, 2008 (Compl. ¶9, 11).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "remote ISP server," as described in a 1997-filed patent, be construed to cover the architecture of modern, cloud-based network security and wireless policy services, or is its scope limited to the more traditional internet access provider model described in the patent's embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's lack of technical specifics, the case will likely turn on whether discovery shows that AT&T's accused services technically operate by "associating" individual network "accounts" with distinct sets of "logical filtering elements," as required by the claims, or if their functionality is achieved through a different, non-infringing method.
• Finally, the willfulness claim will depend on the nature of knowledge: will AT&T's 2008 citation of the '606 Patent in an IDS be sufficient to establish the level of pre-suit knowledge and subjective intent required to support a finding of willful infringement, particularly for conduct occurring years later?