Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Beazer Homes USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Beazer Homes USA, Inc. and Beazer General Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00424, D. Del., 03/20/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are registered Delaware corporations that have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' use of third-party URL shortening services in their social media marketing infringes a patent related to providing access to internet locations via "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The technology concerns simplifying user access to specific web pages in an era before the dominance of modern search engines, replacing long, complex URLs with short, simple codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case involving the same patent in the District of Delaware, citing specific claim constructions for key terms that were adopted by the court on January 4, 2009. The outcome of that prior proceeding may influence claim construction in this matter.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,049,835 - "System For Providing Easy Access To The World Wide Web Utilizing A Published List Of Preselected Internet Locations Together With Their Unique Multi-Digit Jump Codes," issued April 11, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the difficulty for early internet users in navigating the World Wide Web, specifically citing the "error-prone, tedious and confusing entry of URLs" which are described as a "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands" that must be typed exactly. (’835 Patent, col. 4:56-60, col. 7:13-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to simplify web access. The system relies on a "published compilation," such as a printed book or directory, which lists preselected websites along with a unique, simple "jump code" for each. (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:51-65). A user accesses a single, specialized website (the "predetermined Internet location"), enters the jump code from the publication, and software on that central site automatically converts the code into the corresponding full URL and redirects the user to their desired destination, bypassing the need for the user to ever type the complex URL themselves. (’835 Patent, col. 6:58-65, col. 9:23-30).
• Technical Importance: In an era of less sophisticated web browsers and before the widespread adoption of powerful search engines, this method offered a way to make the web more accessible to non-technical users by abstracting away the complexity of URLs. (’835 Patent, col. 2:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11. (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential steps of independent claim 11 include:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code for each location;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location (e.g., a central website) with means for capturing a jump code;
  • a user accessing that predetermined location and entering the jump code;
  • receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined location;
  • converting the received jump code into a URL address; and
  • automatically accessing the desired Internet location using that converted URL address. (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-col. 10:1).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendants' use of their Twitter account "@BeazerHomes" and related marketing activities that employ a third-party link shortening service, identified as "spr.ly" and alleged to be managed by Sprinklr. (Compl. ¶7, 13c, 13e).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants publish advertisements on Twitter containing shortened URLs. (Compl. ¶13a). When a user clicks one of these shortened links, they are directed to the link shortening service ("spr.ly"), which then automatically redirects them to a final destination webpage, such as a page on www.beazer.com. (Compl. ¶13d, 13g). The complaint alleges the existence of a service agreement between Defendants and the link shortening service provider, Sprinklr. (Compl. ¶13e).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether claim terms rooted in 1990s technology can read on modern internet practices. Specifically, does "publishing a compilation," which the patent embodies as a printed book, cover a series of individual posts on a social media feed? (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-58). Further, does a "multi-digit jump code," which the patent describes as being manually entered by a user, read on an alphanumeric string embedded within a hyperlink that is activated by a single click? (’835 Patent, col. 9:16-18).
• Technical Questions: A central issue is whether the alleged conduct constitutes infringement by a single entity. The complaint's allegations describe a method performed by three separate actors: Defendants (publishing), the end-user (accessing and entering), and a third-party service provider (receiving, converting, and automatically accessing). The complaint asserts direct infringement under a "divided infringement" theory, which will require Plaintiff to prove that Defendants "conditioned participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit" upon the user's performance of a step and established the manner of that performance, and that an agreement exists with the third-party service provider. (Compl. ¶13d, 13e, 14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. The dispute will likely center on whether a modern alphanumeric URL shortener code (e.g., 6016BEpM2 as alleged in Compl. ¶13b) qualifies as a "multi-digit jump code." The complaint relies on a prior construction defining it as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number." (Compl. ¶13b).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "multi-digit" is a general descriptor for a multi-character identifier and is not limited to numerals, and that the prior construction "consisting of more than one number" does not preclude the presence of letters.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "digit" often refers to a numeral (0-9). Dependent claim 19 specifies a "four digit number," which could imply that "digit" throughout the patent means a numeral. (’835 Patent, col. 10:20-21). Defendants may argue the prior construction "consisting of more than one number" requires a purely numeric code.

The Term: "publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations"

• Context and Importance: The first step of the asserted method claim requires "publishing a compilation." Whether Defendants' Twitter feed meets this definition is a threshold question for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff relies on a prior construction defining a similar phrase as "a publicly accessible collection of information." (Compl. ¶13a). Plaintiff will likely argue that a corporate Twitter feed is a "publicly accessible collection of information" about its web properties.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently describes the "compilation" as a discrete, curated publication, specifically a book titled "What's on the Web" containing reviews of websites. (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-63). Defendants may argue that a dynamic, chronologically-ordered social media feed is not a "compilation" in the organized, directory-like sense contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead traditional indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). Instead, it advances a theory of direct infringement under a "divided infringement" framework, as articulated in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶14). The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendants control the overall process, condition a benefit upon the user's action of clicking the link, and act in concert with the third-party link shortening service (Sprinklr) pursuant to an agreement. (Compl. ¶13d-f).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can claim terms from a 1996-filed patent, which envisioned users consulting a printed directory and manually typing a numeric "jump code" into a portal, be construed to cover modern one-click URL shortening services that use alphanumeric codes embedded in hyperlinks on a social media feed?
• A key legal question will be one of attribution for divided infringement: Do the alleged relationships between the Defendant, the end-user, and the third-party URL shortening service meet the legal standard for holding the Defendant liable for the actions of the other two parties under the Akamai framework?
• A central procedural question will be the impact of prior claim construction: How will the court treat the claim constructions from a 2009 case involving the same patent? The parties will likely dispute whether those prior constructions are binding and how they should be applied to the different accused technology in this case.