Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Moen Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Moen Incorporated (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC; Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00441, D. Del., 03/01/2019
• 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 system for directing users to its websites via advertisements and shortened URL codes infringes a patent related to providing simplified access to internet locations.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to methods for simplifying user access to specific World Wide Web locations by replacing long, complex URLs with shorter, more memorable codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a January 4, 2009 claim construction order from a prior proceeding in the District of Delaware involving the patent-in-suit. This prior judicial interpretation of key claim terms may significantly influence the present case's claim construction and infringement analyses.

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 early era of the World Wide Web, navigating to specific websites required users to type long, confusing, and error-prone Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) (’835 Patent, col. 4:55-65). The patent identifies a need for a more efficient and user-friendly way to access the "well-thought out and useful sites" among the rapidly growing number of web pages (’835 Patent, col. 4:9-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a "published compilation," such as a printed guide, lists preselected, high-quality websites alongside a unique, multi-digit "jump code" for each (’835 Patent, col. 5:50-65). A user accesses a single, specialized "predetermined Internet location" (e.g., the "JumpCity" website), enters the simple jump code from the guide, and software at the specialized site automatically converts the code into the full, complex URL and redirects the user to the desired destination (’835 Patent, col. 5:35-49). This obviates the need for the user to ever type the long URL.
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to simplify web navigation for non-technical users by providing a curated directory and a shortcut mechanism, analogous to a television guide for the internet, at a time before modern search engines became ubiquitous (’835 Patent, col. 2:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11.
• 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 (a central website) with means for capturing a jump code;
  • a user accessing the predetermined Internet location and entering a jump code;
  • receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined Internet location;
  • converting the jump code to its corresponding URL address; and
  • 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 system for providing access to its websites, which involves advertisements on platforms like Twitter, the use of its website www.moen.com and related URLs (e.g., moen.co), and the use of third-party link shortening services (e.g., Bitly) (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant distributes advertisements, such as on its "@moen" Twitter account, which instruct users to "enter a code to redirect to a new location" (Compl. ¶6). This system allegedly involves publishing a "compilation" of internet locations (e.g., via Twitter), providing a "predetermined Internet location" (e.g., moen.co) where a "jump code" (e.g., a shortened link like 1Hn1MyhH) can be entered or clicked, and using a link shortening service to convert that code into a full URL for a destination website (Compl. ¶13.a-g). The complaint asserts this system provides access to information about Defendant's promotional offerings (Compl. ¶13.e).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether terms from a 1996-era patent can be construed to read on modern internet technologies. A central question will be whether a "published compilation" can encompass a series of advertisements on a social media platform like Twitter, and whether an alphanumeric shortened link (e.g., from Bitly) constitutes a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code." The complaint relies on prior court constructions of these terms, suggesting their application to the accused technology will be a primary point of dispute (Compl. ¶13.a, 13.b, 13.c).
• Technical Questions: A key legal and factual question is one of divided infringement. The complaint alleges that different steps of the claimed method are performed by different entities: the Defendant (publishing), the end-user (accessing and entering), and a third-party service provider like Bitly (receiving, converting, and redirecting) (Compl. ¶13.d-g). The complaint's theory of direct infringement relies on establishing that Defendant is "vicariously liable" for the actions of the user and the third-party service, which requires showing that Defendant "directs or controls" their performance under the standard set in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶14). The factual basis for such control will be heavily scrutinized.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "published compilation of preselected Internet locations"

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on casting Defendant's Twitter advertisements as a "published compilation." The scope of this term is therefore critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction from the 1996 patent context must be broad enough to cover a dynamic social media feed to support Plaintiff's theory. The complaint cites a prior construction: "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites... which have unique URL addresses..." (Compl. ¶13.a).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses publishing the compilation "on-line in said predetermined published Internet location" (’835 Patent, col. 8:55-58), which may support an interpretation that is not limited to a static, physical document.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is a printed publication or book, specifically the "What's on the Web" book "110", which contains reviews and codes (’835 Patent, col. 5:50-65). This could support a narrower definition tied to a curated, bound, or static collection rather than a fluid stream of posts.

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

• Context and Importance: This term's definition is central to determining whether modern shortened links (e.g., Bitly links) fall within the claim scope. The complaint cites a prior construction: "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b). Plaintiff's allegation that an alphanumeric string like "1Hn1MyhH" meets this definition will likely be a point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that while a four-digit code is used in the embodiment, "obviously a larger number of digits could be utilized" (’835 Patent, col. 5:66-68). The term "multi-digit" itself does not explicitly exclude alphabetic characters in all contexts.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification consistently refer to the code as a "multi-digit jump code" and a "four digit number," which may suggest a purely numeric composition was contemplated (’835 Patent, col. 8:62-63). The specific embodiment is a "four-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 5:45).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint structures its primary infringement claim as one for direct infringement under a theory of joint or divided infringement, as articulated in Akamai. It alleges Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of end-users and third-party service providers (like Bitly) (Compl. ¶¶ 13.d, 13.e, 14). The factual basis for this liability is an alleged agreement between Defendant and the service provider and the conditioning of a benefit (e.g., promotional offerings) on the user's performance of a claimed step (Compl. ¶13.e).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages.

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

The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two central questions for the court:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope and application: Can claim terms conceived in the 1990s and defined in a 2009 court order—specifically "published compilation" and "multi-digit jump code"—be applied to the technical realities of modern social media advertising and third-party URL shortening services?

2. A key legal and evidentiary question will be one of agency and control: Does the complaint plead sufficient facts to establish that Defendant "directs or controls" the actions of both end-users and a separate commercial entity (the link shortening service) to such a degree that all steps of the claimed method can be attributed to Defendant for a finding of direct infringement under the Akamai framework?