Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Angry Orchard Cider Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Angry Orchard Cider Company, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC; Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00894, D. Del., 06/15/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a Delaware limited liability company, thus residing in the State of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs (e.g., from bit.ly) in its online advertising infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to provide access to preselected internet locations.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses web navigation methods from the early internet era, before the dominance of modern search engines, when manually typing long and complex URLs was a more common user problem.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in a prior proceeding related to the patent-in-suit, the District of Delaware construed several key claim phrases on January 4, 2009. These prior constructions are cited as the basis for the current infringement allegations, suggesting their adoption will be a central issue 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," issued April 11, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the mid-1990s, the burgeoning World Wide Web contained over 100,000 sites, many with URLs that were a "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands" which were "extremely difficult to work with" and required exact typing (’835 Patent, col. 4:55-65). The patent identifies a need for a system to help users access "well-thought out and useful sites" in an "easy to use, automatic, and efficient manner" without this "arduous task" (’835 Patent, col. 4:10-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered around a "published compilation" of curated websites, such as a physical book or magazine (’835 Patent, Fig. 1, item 110). This publication lists preselected websites along with a unique, simple "multi-digit jump code" for each (’835 Patent, col. 5:44-56). A user accesses a single, specialized website (e.g., "JumpCity"), enters the jump code from the publication into an on-screen form, and software on the specialized site automatically converts the code into the full target URL and redirects the user, eliminating the need to type the complex address (’835 Patent, col. 5:32-43, col. 7:3-15).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to simplify web navigation by replacing long, error-prone URLs with short, memorable codes, analogous to how phone numbers simplify connecting to a specific telephone line.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code for each location;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user;
  • a user accessing the predetermined Internet location and entering the jump code;
  • receiving the entered jump code;
  • converting the jump code to a corresponding URL address; and
  • automatically accessing the desired Internet location using that URL address.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s system for online advertising, which involves operating the website www.angryorchard.com and distributing advertisements on social media platforms like Twitter that use shortened URLs from services such as bit.ly (Compl. ¶6, ¶13.a-c).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes advertisements, for example on its "@AngryOrchard" Twitter account, which instruct users to "enter a code to redirect to a new location" (Compl. ¶6). This "code" is identified as the alphanumeric string in a shortened link (e.g., bit.ly/1UjqiX4) (Compl. ¶13.b). When a user clicks this link, the link shortening service (e.g., Bitly) receives the code embedded in the URL, converts it to the full destination URL (e.g., a page on angryorchard.com), and automatically redirects the user's browser to that destination page (Compl. ¶13.c-g). The complaint asserts that Defendant is "vicariously liable" for the actions performed by the user and the link shortening service provider (Compl. ¶13.d-f).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement theory hinges on mapping the elements of the patented method onto the modern practice of using third-party URL shortening services in advertising. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue is whether a series of distinct social media posts can constitute a "published compilation" as contemplated by the patent, which illustrates the concept with a physical book (’835 Patent, Fig. 1). Another question is whether an alphanumeric string like "1UjqiX4," which includes letters, meets the definition of a "multi-digit jump code," particularly if the court adopts the prior construction of "more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a user "enter[s]" a jump code "by clicking upon a URL" (Compl. ¶13.d). This raises the question of whether a single click on a hyperlink is functionally equivalent to the patent's description of a user first navigating to a portal site and then separately typing a code into an "on-screen HTML box or form" (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5). The infringement theory also relies on a finding of vicarious liability for actions performed by both end-users and the third-party link shortening service.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory equates a user clicking a hyperlink with the act of "entering" a code. The viability of the case may depend on whether these two actions are legally and technically equivalent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification appears to describe a distinct, two-step user action: first, accessing a site, and second, manually inputting a code (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-15).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify the precise mechanism of "entering," which a party might argue leaves room for any user action that causes the code to be transmitted to the system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process as entering the code into a "standard on-screen HTML box or form" and using a key "similar to the enter key of the keyboard" (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5, col. 7:62-63). This language suggests a manual data entry process, not a single-click hyperlink activation.

Term: "multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that alphanumeric strings from services like bit.ly are "multi-digit jump codes" while also citing a prior construction defining the term as a code "consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b). This creates an immediate tension. The definition of "digit" (whether it is limited to numerals 0-9) and the binding effect of the prior construction will be central.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "multi-digit" is not explicitly defined in the patent. A party could argue that in a computing context, "digit" can refer to any character in a set (e.g., hexadecimal digits).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the example of a "four-digit jump code" and a "four digit number," strongly implying a numeric-only code (’835 Patent, col. 5:61, col. 6:59). The term "digit" in common parlance refers to a numeral.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. Instead, it advances a direct infringement theory under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) based on divided infringement, where the actions of multiple parties (Defendant, the user, and Bitly) are combined and attributed to the Defendant (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges vicarious liability based on Defendant "conditioning participation in an activity" (for the user) and the existence of a service agreement with the third-party link shortener (for Bitly) (Compl. ¶13.d-e). This theory relies on the standard articulated in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include allegations to support willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's answers to three central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "multi-digit jump code", described in the patent as a "four digit number" and previously construed as consisting of "more than one number", be interpreted to cover the alphanumeric strings generated by modern URL shortening services?
2. A key question will be one of functional equivalence: Does a user's single click on a hyperlink, which contains an embedded code, constitute the same act as the patent's method of "entering" a code into a form on a portal website? This addresses whether a one-step process can infringe a claim that describes a two-step process.
3. A determinative legal question will be one of attribution: Can the plaintiff's divided infringement theory succeed? This will require showing that Defendant directed or controlled the actions of both the end-user (by "conditioning participation") and the third-party link shortening service to such a degree that all steps of the claimed method can be attributed to Defendant as a single actor under the Akamai standard.