Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Coca Cola Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Coca-Cola Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00975, D. Del., Filed 06/29/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that conducts business and directs advertisements to residents within the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of third-party URL shortening services (e.g., Bitly) in its online advertising infringes a patent related to a system for accessing web locations using unique codes.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the difficulty of navigating the early World Wide Web by replacing long, complex URLs with short, easy-to-enter "jump codes."
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in a prior proceeding related to the patent-in-suit, the District of Delaware issued claim constructions for key terms on January 4, 2009. The complaint also cites the Federal Circuit's decision in Akamai v. Limelight to support its theory of liability for divided infringement.

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 describes the state of the internet in the mid-1990s, where accessing websites required the "error-prone, tedious and confusing entry of URLs" ('835 Patent, col. 7:14-16). The proliferation of websites made it difficult for non-technical users to find and access specific online content ('835 Patent, col. 4:1-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify web navigation. It involves a "published compilation" (e.g., a printed guide or an online list) of preselected websites, where each site is assigned a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 8:14-18). A user first navigates to a single, specialized "predetermined Internet location" (e.g., "JumpCity.com"). At this central site, the user enters the short jump code from the published list, and software at the site automatically converts the code into the full, complex URL and redirects the user's browser to the desired destination ('835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:41-49).
• Technical Importance: This system aimed to create a user-friendly layer on top of the web's technical infrastructure, analogous to a phone book or TV guide, making the web more accessible to a mass audience unaccustomed to its technical protocols ('835 Patent, col. 4:8-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 11 ('Compl. ¶13).
• The essential steps of Claim 11 are:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with an assigned unique multi-digit jump code for each location.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location that has means for capturing a desired jump code.
  • A user accessing the predetermined location and entering the jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code.
  • Converting the jump code to its corresponding URL address.
  • 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 method of using its online media, specifically its Twitter account "@CocaColaCo," to distribute advertisements that employ shortened URLs from services like Bitly to redirect users to other web locations (Compl. ¶¶6, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes messages on Twitter that include shortened links (e.g., bit.ly links) (Compl. ¶13.a). When a user clicks such a link, they are directed to the link shortening service (the "predetermined Internet location"), which captures the unique alphanumeric code in the shortened URL (the "jump code") (Compl. ¶¶13.c-d). The service then automatically converts this code into the full destination URL and redirects the user's browser to the target webpage, such as a promotional site (Compl. ¶¶13.f-g). The complaint frames this activity as part of Defendant’s promotional and marketing efforts (Compl. ¶13.d).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether a corporate social media feed constitutes a "published compilation" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which primarily describes a curated book or directory ('835 Patent, col. 5:51-60). A second scope question arises from the complaint's allegation that an alphanumeric string like "1nYJSj0" is a "multi-digit jump code," particularly when the complaint also cites a prior court construction defining a similar term as a "code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on attributing the actions of the end-user (clicking the link) and the third-party link shortening service (performing the conversion and redirection) to the Defendant. A key question will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual support that Defendant "conditioned" participation or "establish[ed] the manner or timing" of these third-party actions to satisfy the standard for divided infringement liability (Compl. ¶¶13.d, 14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "published compilation of preselected Internet locations"

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Defendant's Twitter feed can be considered a "published compilation." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's primary embodiment is a curated, static publication (a book), which differs in character from a dynamic, real-time social media feed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction defining a similar phrase as "a publicly accessible collection of information" (Compl. ¶13.a). The patent specification also mentions the possibility of an "on-line list" as an alternative to a printed book, which could support a more dynamic interpretation ('835 Patent, col. 7:64-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily emphasizes a curated, reviewed publication, referring to a "book 110" that contains "reviews of Web sites" selected based on criteria like content, usefulness, and professional design ('835 Patent, col. 5:51-60; col. 6:27-55). This could support an argument that a mere stream of links lacks the requisite "preselection" and "compilation" structure.

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

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that alphanumeric strings from services like Bitly (e.g., "1nYJSj0") meet this limitation. However, the complaint also cites a prior construction of this term as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b). This creates an immediate point of contention over whether a code containing letters can infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to simplify the "confusing entry of URLs" ('835 Patent, col. 7:15-16). An alphanumeric string serves this purpose. While "four-digit" is used as an example, the patent notes that "a larger number of digits could be utilized," which does not explicitly forbid non-numeric characters ('835 Patent, col. 5:66-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to a "four-digit jump code" and a "four digit number," suggesting a purely numeric format was contemplated ('835 Patent, col. 8:63, col. 9:19-20). The prior construction cited in the complaint, which specifies "more than one number," could be interpreted to strictly exclude letters (Compl. ¶13.b).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. However, its direct infringement theory under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) is premised on a divided infringement fact pattern, alleging Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of end-users and the third-party link shortening service, Bitly (Compl. ¶¶13.d-g, 14). The complaint alleges liability is based on Defendant conditioning benefits on the user's performance and the existence of an agreement between Defendant and Bitly (Compl. ¶¶13.d, 13.e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the '835 Patent.

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

• A central issue will be one of divided infringement liability: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant directed or controlled the actions of both end-users (who click the links) and the third-party link-shortening service to the extent necessary to hold Defendant liable for performing every step of the asserted method claim, as required by the Federal Circuit's Akamai framework?
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "published compilation," rooted in the patent's description of a curated book or directory, be construed to cover a corporate Twitter feed?
• A third key question will be one of claim construction and technical mismatch: Does the term "multi-digit jump code," which a prior court allegedly construed to mean a code of "more than one number," read on the alphanumeric strings (containing both numbers and letters) used by the accused modern URL shortening services?