Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Build A Bear Workshop Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC; Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00971, D. Del., 06/29/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that conducts business in the state and directs advertisements to its residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of link-shortening services in its online advertising infringes a patent related to a system for accessing web locations using simplified codes.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to simplifying internet navigation by using short "jump codes" to access web pages with long, complex Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), a method relevant in the early commercial internet era.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case involving the same patent, noting that on January 4, 2009, the District of Delaware construed several key claim phrases. These prior constructions may influence how the claims are interpreted in the current litigation.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the early days of the World Wide Web, accessing websites often required users to manually and precisely type long and "confusing string[s]" of characters known as URLs, a process the patent describes as "error-prone, tedious and confusing" (’835 Patent, col. 4:56-65, col. 7:13-15). This created a barrier for non-technical users.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system to solve this problem. First, a "published compilation" (e.g., a printed book or an online directory) provides a list of desirable websites alongside a unique, short "jump code" for each (’835 Patent, col. 5:44-54). Second, a user accesses a central "specialized Web site" (referred to as "JumpCity" in an embodiment), enters the jump code from the list into an on-screen form, and software on that central site automatically converts the code into the full URL and redirects the user's browser to the desired destination (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:4-9).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to make the web more accessible by replacing the need for users to manage complex URLs with a simpler, directory-based code entry method, akin to a channel guide for the internet. (’835 Patent, col. 4:9-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-28; Compl. ¶13).
• Claim 11 Elements:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, said published compilation including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code assigned to each...
  • providing a predetermined Internet location having an address published in said published compilation, said predetermined Internet location comprising means for capturing a desired multi-digit jump code...
  • accessing said predetermined Internet location and entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location;
  • receiving said multi-digit jump code entered into said predetermined Internet location...
  • converting the received multi-digit jump code to a URL address corresponding to the desired preselected Internet location; and
  • automatically accessing said desired preselected Internet location using said 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 Build-A-Bear's method of advertising, which involves operating the website "www.buildabear.com" and its Twitter account "@buildabear" to distribute advertisements that use shortened URLs generated by third-party services like Bitly (Compl. ¶¶6, 13a-c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Build-A-Bear publishes posts on social media (e.g., Twitter) that contain shortened links (Compl. ¶13a). When a user clicks one of these links (e.g., a "bit.ly" link), the user's browser is directed to the link-shortening service, which then automatically redirects the browser to a destination page on Build-A-Bear's website (Compl. ¶13d-g). This practice is common in digital marketing to create shorter, more manageable links for social media and to track user engagement. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on a sequence of actions performed by three distinct parties: Build-A-Bear (publishing), the end user (clicking), and a third-party service like Bitly (receiving, converting, redirecting) (Compl. ¶¶13d-g, 14). This raises the question of whether any single entity performs all steps of the claimed method, creating a significant issue of divided infringement.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether a user clicking a single, self-contained hyperlink ("http://bit.ly/[code]") constitutes "accessing" a location and then separately "entering" a code into it, as required by the claim. The patent's specification appears to describe a two-step process where a user first navigates to a central site and then types a code into an "on-screen HTML box or form" (’835 Patent, col. 7:4-9). This suggests a potential operational mismatch between the claimed method and the accused activity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the alphanumeric strings in modern shortened URLs (e.g., "1Ou2bCG") fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint cites a prior construction from 2009 defining it as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13b), which could be interpreted as excluding letters.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "multi-digit" itself does not inherently exclude alphabetic characters in all technical contexts, and the use of "number" in the prior construction could be argued to be exemplary rather than limiting.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to a "four-digit jump code" and a "four digit number" in its preferred embodiment, suggesting a purely numeric implementation was contemplated (’835 Patent, col. 5:61, col. 6:9). The prior court construction explicitly uses the word "number," which may be argued to limit the scope to numerals.

The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the act of infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether a user clicking a hyperlink that contains a code is legally equivalent to a user entering a code. The plaintiff's case depends on this equivalence.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "entering" should be interpreted broadly in the context of computer inputs to include any user action that submits the code to the system for processing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes the user's action as entering the code into "a standard on-screen HTML box or form," which strongly implies manual input, such as typing (’835 Patent, col. 7:4-9). This language supports a narrow construction that distinguishes between typing a code and clicking a link that contains a code.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint's theory of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) is based on vicarious liability for the actions of others, citing Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶14). The allegations state that Defendant is liable for the user's actions by "conditioning participation in an activity" and for the link-shortening service's actions based on the existence of an "agreement" (i.e., terms of service) between them (Compl. ¶¶ 13d-f). These allegations would also form the basis for any potential claim of induced infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain specific allegations of willful infringement or detail facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of divided infringement: can the plaintiff establish that Build-A-Bear directs or controls the actions of both the end-user and the third-party link-shortening service (e.g., Bitly) to the degree required by the Akamai standard, thereby making it liable for a method it does not fully perform itself?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and operational mismatch: does a user clicking a single, integrated hyperlink that contains a code ("http://service.com/code") satisfy the claim limitation of first "accessing" a location and then separately "entering" a code into it, as the patent specification appears to describe?
• The case may also turn on a definitional scope question from a prior litigation: can the term "multi-digit jump code," previously construed by the court to mean a code of "more than one number," be interpreted to cover the alphanumeric strings used by modern URL shorteners, or is its scope limited to numerals only?