Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Boot Barn Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. and Boot Barn, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00882, D. Del., 06/14/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are Delaware corporations, are registered to do business in Delaware, and direct advertisements to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of online advertisements on platforms like Twitter, which employ link-shortening services to redirect users, infringes a patent related to accessing web locations via unique jump codes.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for simplifying World Wide Web navigation from the early internet era, proposing the use of short, memorable codes as a substitute for typing long and complex URLs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in a prior proceeding related to the patent-in-suit, the District of Delaware issued claim construction rulings for key terms on January 4, 2009. Plaintiff leverages these prior constructions in its infringement allegations.

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 1990s, accessing websites required users to type long, confusing, and error-prone Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) exactly as they appeared, a task described as an "arduous task" and the "bane of the use of the Web" (’835 Patent, col. 4:54-65). Finding useful content among the rapidly growing number of sites was often a "frustrating and information starving experience" (’835 Patent, col. 4:5-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to simplify this process. A user is provided with a "published compilation," such as a printed book, containing a list of preselected websites and their corresponding unique "jump codes" (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-57). The user first navigates to a single, "specialized Web site" (e.g., "JumpCity"). Once there, the user enters the desired jump code into an on-screen form. Software at the specialized site then receives the code, looks up the full URL in a database, and automatically redirects the user to the intended destination, bypassing the need to manually type the complex URL (’835 Patent, col. 5:61-68; col. 7:3-10).
• Technical Importance: This system provided a user-friendly navigation method for non-technical individuals at a time when web browsers and search engines were still nascent, addressing a significant barrier to the web's mainstream adoption (’835 Patent, col. 2:6-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-29; Compl. ¶14).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 include:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with unique, predetermined multi-digit jump codes.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location (e.g., a central website) with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user.
  • 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 the corresponding full URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the desired preselected Internet location using the converted URL address.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendants' method of advertising, which involves distributing advertisements through media such as the "@bootbarn" Twitter account that "instruct recipients to enter a code to redirect to a new location" (Compl. ¶7). This method is alleged to utilize third-party link shortening services, such as Bitly (Compl. ¶14.b).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants publish compilations of information, such as tweets, containing links to their web properties (Compl. ¶14.a). These links are often shortened URLs (e.g., a bit.ly link) that contain a unique code (e.g., "18ylDiZ") (Compl. ¶14.b). When a user clicks the link, they are first directed to the link shortener's service (the alleged "predetermined Internet location"), which captures the code embedded in the URL, converts it to the final destination URL (e.g., a page on bootbarn.com), and automatically redirects the user's browser to that final destination (Compl. ¶14.c-g).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question is whether a dynamic social media feed (e.g., Twitter) meets the claim limitation of "a published compilation," which the patent primarily describes as a static, curated "printed publication or book" (’835 Patent, col. 5:51). The complaint relies on a prior, broader construction to support its theory (Compl. ¶14.a). Another scope question is whether a third-party link-shortening service like Bitly, which Defendant does not own or operate, can be considered the "predetermined Internet location" provided by the Defendant.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether a user's single click on a hyperlink can satisfy two distinct claim steps: "accessing said predetermined Internet location" and "entering said desired multi-digit jump code" (Compl. ¶14.d). The patent specification describes these as separate actions, where a user first navigates to a site and then manually inputs a code into a form (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5). The complaint's theory of vicarious liability for the actions of end-users and a separate corporate entity (the link shortener) under Akamai will likely face scrutiny regarding the level of "direction or control" Defendant exercises over those parties (Compl. ¶15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case may depend on the construction of this term. The patent's embodiment describes a user manually typing a code into an "on-screen HTML box or form" (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5), a two-step process. The accused method involves a single click on a hyperlink where the code is passed automatically. Practitioners may focus on this term because the alleged equivalence between manual entry and an automated click is a potential point of non-infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the method of entry (e.g., typing, clicking, voice command). An argument could be made that any user action that results in the code being transmitted to the server for processing constitutes "entering" the code.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a user actively inputting a code after arriving at the specialized site, for example by using a keyboard or a "remote control which is similar to a standard television channel selector" (’835 Patent, col. 5:3; col. 5:61-64). This context suggests a manual, conscious action distinct from the automated data transfer that occurs when clicking a hyperlink.

The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that an alphanumeric string like "18ylDiZ" is a "multi-digit jump code" (Compl. ¶14.b). The patent repeatedly uses "four-digit jump code" as its primary example (’835 Patent, col. 5:45). The definition will determine if modern, alphanumeric shortened links fall within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "multi-digit," which is not explicitly limited to numerals. The prior construction cited in the complaint defines it as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶14.b), which could be argued to mean a code containing more than one numeral, not a code consisting only of numerals.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's consistent reference to a "four-digit jump code" and the analogy to a "television channel selector" (’835 Patent, col. 5:3) could support an interpretation that the code must be purely numeric, as alphanumeric channel selectors were not common. The word "digit" itself is most commonly associated with numerals 0-9.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead indirect infringement. Instead, it alleges direct infringement by attributing the actions of third parties (users and the link-shortening service) to the Defendants under a theory of joint infringement, citing the standard from Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges Defendants establish the "manner or timing" of the user's performance and act based on an agreement with the link-shortening service provider (Compl. ¶14.d-e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of joint infringement: Can Plaintiff successfully argue that Defendant "directs or controls" the actions of both unaffiliated end-users and third-party service providers (e.g., Bitly) to the extent required by the Akamai standard, thereby allowing their separate actions to be combined into a single act of direct infringement attributable to the Defendant?
• A second key issue will be one of technical equivalence: Does the modern, one-click process of following a shortened URL, where a code is passed automatically within a hyperlink, satisfy the patent's more discrete, sequential claim steps of a user "accessing" a central location and then separately "entering" a code into it?
• Finally, the case will involve a question of definitional scope: Relying on a prior construction, can the term "multi-digit jump code," defined as a code of "more than one number," be construed to read on the alphanumeric strings (e.g., "18ylDiZ") used by modern link shorteners, or is its meaning limited to purely numeric codes as suggested by the patent's examples?