Following a so-called Markman hearing, Delaware District Court Judge Jennifer Hall yesterday accepted a claim construction order submitted by plaintiff SmartSky Networks and defendant Gogo Business Aviation in the ongoing patent dispute between the two companies.
SmartSky filed the complaint in February 2022, alleging that Gogo is infringing on its patents, a key one of which involved how air-to-ground (ATG) connectivity systems conduct handoffs from one terrestrial base station to another. SmartSky additionally filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to halt Gogo from making, using, or selling its 5G service while the patent lawsuit makes its way through the courts, but the courts rejected the injunction on January 31.
The order sets forth “(1) the joint constructions agreed upon by the parties either before, or in response to, the Markman hearing; and (2) the constructions for certain terms, phrases, or clauses contained in the asserted claims” of six patents “ruled on by the Court.”
There are two methods of handing off between base stations without interrupting the user’s connectivity: soft or make-before-break and hard or break-before-make. In the former, the connection to the new station is made before the connection to the previous station is broken. In the latter, the connection to the previous station is broken first, then the system connects to the new station.
According to SmartSky, Gogo asserted that “the handoff in the patents must be soft” and that “Judge Hall agreed with SmartSky that the [applicable] ‘947 family of patents cover both soft and hard” breaks. “The definition of this patent language is crucial to the case because SmartSky uses hard handoffs and Gogo has admitted that its 5G system also uses hard handoffs, which would be a clear infringement on SmartSky’s patents. Furthermore, Gogo had previously lost a challenge of the '947 patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which confirmed the validity of the ‘947 patent.”
While the judge’s adopted joint construction order defines terms that both parties agree on, yesterday’s order doesn't make any judgments about the patent claims or the defense by Gogo. Essentially, SmartSky is saying that these adopted construction definitions support its patent claims because the definitions don't support Gogo's infringement defense.
“The interpretations of these pivotal terms in the patents clearly support SmartSky’s novel and unique inventions, confirming our position that Gogo 5G is infringing,” said SmartSky CEO David Helfgott. “Ultimately, decisions made at this juncture have the potential to reshape the landscape of ATG connectivity and will help maintain an atmosphere that fosters innovation while respecting intellectual property rights.”
For its part, Gogo doesn’t see yesterday’s order as a hindrance in defending itself against SmartSky’s patent claims. “Markman rulings are just one step in a series of steps in any active patent litigation,” a Gogo spokesman told AIN. “SmartSky was unsuccessful in its pursuit of a preliminary injunction, as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and the litigation is now running its course. Nothing about the Markman ruling changes Gogo’s position—Gogo denies infringement and believes SmartSky’s patents are invalid. Gogo will continue to defend itself vigorously against SmartSky’s allegations and pursue its offensive patent claims against SmartSky.”