Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Caesars Entertainment Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Caesars Entertainment Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01985, D. Del., 12/14/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation, conducts business in Delaware, and directs advertisements to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs (e.g., from link-shortening services like Bitly) in its online advertising infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to provide simplified access to specific internet locations.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses the challenge of navigating the early World Wide Web, when long and complex URLs were difficult for users to remember and type accurately.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a January 4, 2009, claim construction order from a prior proceeding in the District of Delaware related to the patent-in-suit. This suggests that the scope of key claim terms has been previously litigated, which may influence claim construction in the current case. The complaint also cites legal precedent (Akamai, Travel Sentry) that governs infringement liability when the steps of a patented method are performed by multiple distinct actors, indicating that this "divided infringement" theory is central to the Plaintiff's 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, accessing a specific website required a user to manually type its Uniform Resource Locator (URL), which the patent describes as a "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands" that were "extremely difficult to work with" and prone to user error (’835 Patent, col. 4:56-65). The patent notes that navigating the web could be a "frustrating and information starving experience" (’835 Patent, col. 4:5-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system to bypass the manual entry of complex URLs. It proposes a "published compilation" (e.g., a printed directory or an online list) of interesting websites, where each site is assigned a "unique... multi-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 8:14-17). A user first navigates to a single, "predetermined published Internet location" (e.g., a portal website), enters the simple jump code for their desired destination, and software on the portal website automatically converts the code into the full URL and redirects the user (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:5-19).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a directory-based navigation model for the web, intended to simplify access at a time before modern search engines became the dominant tool for finding online content (’835 Patent, col. 4:10-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 11.
• Claim 11 is a method claim comprising the following essential steps:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with an assigned unique 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 location and entering the jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code.
  • Converting the jump code into the corresponding URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the desired Internet location using that URL address.
• 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 involves distributing advertisements through media such as Twitter that instruct recipients to use a code to be redirected to a new web location (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes information on Twitter that includes shortened URLs (e.g., generated by Bitly). When a user clicks this shortened URL, their browser is directed to the link-shortening service's website, which then automatically redirects the user to Defendant’s intended destination website (Compl. ¶¶13.a-g). The complaint frames this process as an infringement of the patented method, where Defendant's Twitter feed is the "published compilation," the shortened URL is the "jump code," and the link-shortening service (e.g., Bitly) is the "predetermined Internet location" that performs the code conversion and redirection (Compl. ¶¶13.a-c). The complaint alleges this activity is directed at U.S. residents, including those in Delaware (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether a modern, alphanumeric, shortened URL (e.g., "bit.ly/235c7vh") constitutes a "multi-digit jump code" within the meaning of the patent. The complaint alleges a prior court construction defined the term as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b), which raises the question of whether an alphanumeric string meets that definition.
• Technical and Legal Questions: The complaint's infringement theory depends on attributing the actions of three separate parties (Defendant, the user, and a third-party link-shortening service) to the Defendant (Compl. ¶14). This raises a critical legal question of whether Defendant's actions meet the standard for vicarious liability under the Akamai framework. The analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant "conditions" the user's benefit on performing the clicking step and whether its relationship with the link-shortening service (e.g., via terms of service) is sufficient to attribute that service's actions to Defendant (Compl. ¶¶13.d-f).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: This term's definition is fundamental to the infringement case. The dispute will likely center on whether a modern alphanumeric short-URL string, which is automatically "entered" by a click, falls within the scope of a "jump code" that the patent describes being manually entered by a user.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "multi-digit" without express limitation to numerals. Plaintiff cites a prior construction of "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number," which it will argue covers alphanumeric strings (Compl. ¶13.b).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the preferred embodiment as a "four-digit jump code" or "four digit number" (’835 Patent, col. 4:59; col. 5:45-46; col. 5:66). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to purely numeric codes that are manually typed, not clicked.

The Term: "publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term will determine whether Defendant’s online advertising activities, such as posts on a Twitter feed, constitute the claimed "publishing."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges a prior construction defined a similar phrase as "a publicly accessible collection of information" (Compl. ¶13.a). Plaintiff will argue that a corporate Twitter feed fits this broad definition. The patent also contemplates an online, updatable list in addition to a printed book (’835 Patent, col. 6:11-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described and illustrated in the patent is a printed book or physical publication (e.g., "What's on the Web" book 110) (’835 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 5:51-56). A defendant may argue this implies a more formally curated, static, and bound collection rather than a dynamic, ephemeral stream of social media posts.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead traditional indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c). Instead, it alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by attributing the actions of the end-user and the link-shortening service (Bitly) to the Defendant (Compl. ¶14). The factual basis for this vicarious liability theory includes allegations that Defendant conditions a benefit (e.g., promotional offerings) on the user's performance of a claimed step and establishes the manner and timing of that performance, and that an agreement exists between Defendant and the link-shortening service (Compl. ¶¶13.d-f).

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 definitional scope: Can the term "multi-digit jump code", rooted in the patent's context of manually entered four-digit numeric codes, be construed broadly enough to encompass modern, alphanumeric shortened URLs that are activated by a mouse click?
• A central legal question will be one of divided infringement liability: Does Plaintiff's vicarious liability theory satisfy the demanding standard set forth in Akamai? The case will likely turn on whether the evidence shows Defendant sufficiently directed or controlled the actions of both end-users and the third-party link-shortening service to be held directly liable for all steps of the claimed method.