Bascom Global Internet Services Inc v. AT&T Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AT&T Corp. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP; Sayles | Werbner, P.C.
• Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00551, N.D. Tex., 03/13/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because AT&T conducts ongoing business and has a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network-based internet filtering products and services infringe a patent related to methods for filtering internet content at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for controlling access to internet content, a foundational component of modern network security and parental control services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that AT&T had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit from at least three sources: its own citation to the patent during the prosecution of an AT&T patent in 2008; information conveyed by Deutsche Bank in 2012; and a prior lawsuit filed by BASCOM against AT&T Inc. (Case No. 3:14-cv-3942). These allegations form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1997-03-19	’606 Patent Priority Date
1999-11-16	’606 Patent Issue Date
2008-10-16	AT&T allegedly cited ’606 Patent in an information disclosure statement
2012-04-18	Deutsche Bank employees allegedly conveyed information on ’606 Patent to AT&T
2018-03-13	Complaint Filing Date

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," issued November 16, 1999

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of internet content filtering in the late 1990s, noting that systems implemented on a user's local computer were easy to circumvent and difficult to maintain across different hardware platforms (’606 Patent, col. 2:1-12). Similarly, filtering at a local area network (LAN) server was also difficult to maintain and typically applied a single, uniform filtering policy to all users, which was often inappropriate (’606 Patent, col. 2:23-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention moves the content filtering function away from the end-user's location to the remote Internet Service Provider (ISP) server (’606 Patent, Abstract). This remote server associates individual user accounts with specific, customizable filtering schemes and sets of filtering elements (e.g., lists of allowed or blocked sites) (’606 Patent, col. 3:3-14). By centralizing filtering at the ISP, the system becomes more difficult for an end-user to bypass and allows for individualized filtering rules for different users accessing the internet through the same ISP.
• Technical Importance: This ISP-level architecture represented a shift from client-side control to network-side control, offering a more robust and scalable solution for deploying customized content filtering.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claimed by the patent.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A local client computer for generating network access requests.
  • At least one filtering scheme.
  • A plurality of sets of logical filtering elements.
  • A remote ISP server that:
    • Is coupled to the client computer and the internet.
    • Associates each network account with at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements.
    • Receives network access requests from the client.
    • Executes the associated filtering scheme using the associated set of logical filtering elements.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies "AT&T's 'Network-Based Firewall' ('NBFW') product and/or other Internet-content filtering, web-filtering, and security offerings" as the "Accused Offerings" (Compl. ¶8).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the Accused Offerings' specific functionality, architecture, or operation. It alleges in a conclusory manner that these are offerings for "Internet-content filtering, web-filtering, and security" (Compl. ¶8). No details are provided regarding the products' market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit or detailed infringement allegations that map specific features of the Accused Offerings to the elements of any patent claim. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the complaint’s lack of technical specificity, the central dispute will likely involve significant fact discovery to determine the actual functionality of the accused NBFW.
  • Scope Questions: A principal question may be whether AT&T's modern, distributed network security infrastructure constitutes a "remote ISP server" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue that its architecture is fundamentally different from the centralized server model depicted in the patent (’606 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the Accused Offerings "associat[e] each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements," as required by claim 1. The analysis will depend on whether AT&T’s system allows for individualized, account-level filtering rules or applies more generic, group-level policies that may not map to the claim’s requirements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "remote ISP server"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's point of novelty, which is moving filtering to the ISP. The definition will be critical for determining whether AT&T's modern network architecture, which may be significantly more complex and distributed than the infrastructure of the 1990s, falls within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server in functional terms as providing subscribers with access to the Internet, which could support an argument that any network-side component performing this function qualifies (’606 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures consistently depict the "ISP SERVER" as a discrete, singular entity (e.g., element 100 in Fig. 1) situated between the client and the internet, which could support a narrower construction limited to a more centralized server architecture.

• The Term: "associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme"

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific link between an individual "network account" and a "filtering scheme." This is the core of the customizable aspect of the invention. Whether the accused system performs this specific type of association will be a central infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because a generic firewall that applies one policy to all users, or to broad user categories not tied to individual accounts, may not meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "associating" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to cover any logical link between a user's identity and a set of filtering rules, however implemented.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes "individual end-user accounts" and "individualized customization," suggesting the association is specific to each end-user, not to broad groups (’606 Patent, col. 3:3-4, col. 4:49-52).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that AT&T induces infringement by providing customers with "promotional and marketing materials, product manuals, and instructional materials" that encourage infringing use of the Accused Offerings (Compl. ¶8). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the offerings are not staple articles of commerce and are "especially made or adapted to infringe" (’606 Patent, ¶8).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on AT&T’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’606 Patent. The specific factual bases alleged are (1) a prior lawsuit involving the same patent, (2) AT&T’s citation of the patent during its own patent prosecution, and (3) notice provided by a third party, Deutsche Bank (Compl. ¶9, ¶11). The complaint alleges that AT&T infringed "despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement" (Compl. ¶11).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be whether the Plaintiff, through discovery, can produce evidence demonstrating that the technical operation of AT&T's "Network-Based Firewall" maps to the specific limitations of the asserted claims, particularly given the absence of such factual detail in the complaint itself.
2. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, specifically whether the term "remote ISP server", conceived in the context of 1990s internet architecture, can be construed to encompass a modern, distributed, and potentially cloud-based network security service.
3. Willfulness and Pre-Suit Knowledge: If infringement is found, a central question will be whether the specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge—stemming from prior litigation, patent prosecution history, and third-party notice—are sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.