Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Hub Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hub Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC; Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00572, D. Del., 04/17/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a registered Delaware corporation that conducts business and directs advertisements to residents in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs in its online advertisements infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to access preselected internet locations.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to simplifying user navigation of the World Wide Web during its early commercial expansion, when remembering and typing long, complex URLs was a significant usability barrier.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in a prior proceeding related to the patent-in-suit on January 4, 2009, the District of Delaware construed the phrases “a published compilation of preselected Internet locations” and “a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code.” These prior constructions may influence how the claims are interpreted in this case.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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: In the early era of the World Wide Web, navigating to specific websites required users to type long, confusing, and error-prone Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). The patent notes that with over 100,000 websites, finding useful content was a "frustrating and information starving experience" (’835 Patent, col. 4:5-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system to simplify access. First, a "published list" (e.g., a printed book or directory) contains descriptions of preselected websites, each assigned a unique, easy-to-remember "multi-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 4:43-48). Second, a user accesses a single, specialized "predetermined Internet location" (e.g., "JumpCity.com") and enters the jump code from the directory. Software at the specialized location then automatically converts the code into the full, corresponding URL and directs the user’s browser to the desired destination, eliminating the need for the user to ever type the complex URL (’835 Patent, col. 5:44-56).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to make the burgeoning Web more accessible to non-technical users by replacing complex URLs with a simpler, directory-and-code based navigation method, analogous to a telephone book. (’835 Patent, col. 1:7-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 11.
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with unique multi-digit jump codes;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user;
  • accessing said predetermined Internet location and entering said desired multi-digit jump code;
  • receiving the entered jump code;
  • converting the received jump code to a corresponding URL address; and
  • automatically accessing the desired location using the converted URL.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's method of advertising, which allegedly involves distributing advertisements through media like its Twitter account (@HubGroup) that instruct recipients to use a "code to redirect to a new location" (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes compilations of information (e.g., tweets) that include shortened URLs (e.g., from a service like Bitly) which, when clicked, redirect a user to a desired destination website (Compl. ¶12.a-b). This functionality is used in promotional offerings to direct potential customers to specific web pages. The complaint asserts that this system uses "shortened codes recognized by bit.ly," providing "1tly2gc" as an example of a "multi-digit jump code" (Compl. ¶12.b). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the market context or commercial importance of this specific advertising method.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement theory posits that Defendant's use of third-party link shortening services in its advertising satisfies the elements of Claim 11, asserting that Defendant is vicariously liable for the steps performed by the user and the link shortening service under the doctrine set forth in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶13).

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the act of a user clicking a single, self-contained hyperlink (e.g., a bit.ly link) constitutes "accessing" a location and then "entering" a "jump code" as two distinct conceptual steps required by the claim. The complaint alleges that the user "accessed the predetermined Internet location... and, thereafter, entered the desired multi-digit jump code" (Compl. ¶12.d), but the physical action described is a single click.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory equates a modern URL shortener with the patent's system. This raises the question of whether a shortened URL (e.g., bit.ly/1tly2gc) is itself the "predetermined Internet location," or if the alphanumeric string (1tly2gc) is the "jump code" and the service (bit.ly) is the "predetermined Internet location." The complaint appears to conflate these concepts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining whether the alphanumeric strings in modern shortened URLs fall within the claim scope. The complaint cites a prior construction from 2009 defining it as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶12.b). Practitioners may focus on whether "number" in this context is limited to numerals (0-9) or can encompass alphanumeric characters.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "multi-digit," which is not explicitly limited to numerals. Plaintiff may argue that in the context of computing, a "digit" can refer to any character in a set, and that the prior construction's use of "number" should be read broadly as a unique identifier.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "four-digit jump code" when describing the preferred embodiment (e.g., ’835 Patent, col. 5:45, 5:61, 5:66). This consistent reference to a numeric code could be used to argue that the invention, as disclosed, was limited to numerical digits.

• The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the key user action. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether a single mouse click on a hyperlink can be construed as "entering" a code.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide intrinsic evidence for a broad reading. Plaintiff's argument appears to be based on the functional outcome: the code is transmitted to a server for processing, which Plaintiff equates with being "entered."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system where a user first accesses a specialized website and then separately inputs a code, stating "entering the four digit jump code will instantly link the Web site" (’835 Patent, col. 5:61-63). This suggests a manual, conscious act of input distinct from simply navigating via a pre-packaged link.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the direct infringement theory for this multi-actor method claim relies entirely on vicarious liability under the Akamai framework. Plaintiff alleges Defendant is liable for the user's step of "entering" the code because it "condition[s] participation in an activity" upon performance of the step (Compl. ¶12.d). It further alleges Defendant is liable for the steps performed by the link shortening service (e.g., Bitly) based on the existence of an agreement, such as the service's terms of service (Compl. ¶12.e, 12.f).

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

This case will likely depend on the resolution of several fundamental questions regarding the mapping of an early Web-era patent onto modern internet technology and legal questions of divided infringement.

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the two-step process described in the patent—(1) navigating to a central portal and (2) manually "entering" a "jump code" found in a separate directory—be construed to read on the modern, single-click action of following a shortened URL where the destination and code are integrated into one hyperlink?
• A second key issue is one of divided infringement liability: Assuming the actions of the user and the link-shortening service together perform the claimed method, can the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that Defendant "conditioned" the user's performance and directed or controlled the link-shortening service in a manner sufficient to establish direct infringement liability under the Akamai standard?
• Finally, a central definitional question will be whether an alphanumeric string, as used in services like Bitly, constitutes a "multi-digit jump code" under a claim construction that previously defined the term as a "code consisting of more than one number."