Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00237, M.D. Fla., 04/15/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a registered Florida corporation, maintains a designated agent for service in Florida, and has regular and established places of business in the district, including at least three restaurants.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of third-party URL shortening services in its online advertising infringes a patent related to simplifying web access via "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for navigating the early World Wide Web by replacing long, difficult-to-type URLs with short, memorable codes managed by a central directory service.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in a prior proceeding related to the patent-in-suit, the Delaware District Court construed several key claim terms on January 4, 2009. These prior constructions are cited as the basis for the current infringement allegations.

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: The patent describes the early World Wide Web as difficult to navigate, with users forced to type "confusing string[s] of subdirectories, files or executable commands" (URLs) to reach websites, an "arduous task" prone to error (’835 Patent, col. 4:54-65). It also notes that the proliferation of websites created a need for a curated directory of "useful sites" to help users avoid "frustrating and information starving experience[s]" (’835 Patent, col. 4:5-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user is provided with a "published list" (e.g., a book or magazine) of preselected, high-quality websites, each assigned a "unique... jump code" (’835 Patent, Abstract). To visit a site, the user first navigates to a special, centralized website (e.g., "JumpCity"). The user then manually enters the jump code from the published list into the JumpCity site. Software at the JumpCity site receives the code, looks up the corresponding full URL in a database, and automatically redirects the user's browser to the destination website, obviating the need for the user to ever see or type the long URL (’835 Patent, col. 5:44-50; col. 7:1-10).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide a simplified, user-friendly "front door" to the web for non-technical users and act as a curated content guide at a time when web navigation and search engine technology were nascent (’835 Patent, col. 4:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-29; Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with an assigned unique multi-digit jump code for each.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location (itself published in the compilation) with means for capturing a jump code.
  • 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.
  • Automatically accessing the desired Internet location using the converted 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 publishing posts on its "@CrackerBarrel" Twitter account and other online media that utilize a third-party link shortening service, identified as Sprinklr, which operates through domains such as "spr.ly" (Compl. ¶6, ¶¶13.a-c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant creates online advertisements, such as tweets, that include a hyperlink to a destination on the internet (Compl. ¶13.a). Instead of a full URL, this link is a shortened version (e.g., http://spr.ly/6019BIV8W) managed by Sprinklr (Compl. ¶13.b-c). When a user clicks this link, the Sprinklr service is contacted, interprets the alphanumeric code in the URL, and redirects the user’s browser to the intended destination page, such as a promotional page on Defendant's website (Compl. ¶¶13.d-g). The complaint alleges an agreement exists between Defendant and Sprinklr for these services (Compl. ¶13.e-f).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether the two distinct actions described in the patent—(1) "accessing" a central website and (2) subsequently "entering" a code—can be read on the single, integrated action of a user clicking a modern hyperlink that already contains the code. The patent specification appears to describe a two-step, manual process (’835 Patent, col. 5:65-68), raising the question of a mismatch with the accused one-click functionality.
  • Technical Questions: Does a modern alphanumeric URL shortener string (e.g., "6019BIV8W") meet the definition of a "multi-digit jump code"? While the complaint cites a prior construction of this term, the specification's heavy emphasis on a "four-digit" code (’835 Patent, col. 9:20-22) may be used to argue for a narrower interpretation that excludes letters or longer strings.
  • Legal Questions (Divided Infringement): The infringement theory requires attributing the actions of three separate parties (Defendant, the user, and Sprinklr) to the Defendant. The complaint invokes the Akamai framework, alleging Defendant is liable for the actions of the other parties based on an agreement with Sprinklr and by conditioning a user benefit on performance of the steps (Compl. ¶13.d, ¶14). The court will need to determine if these allegations are sufficient to establish the "direction or control" required to prove direct infringement by a single entity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"accessing said predetermined Internet location and entering said desired multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core user action. The infringement case hinges on whether a single click on a modern shortened URL can satisfy what the claim language presents as two sequential or distinct actions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused one-click process appears to diverge from the two-step access-then-enter process described in the patent's specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not use words like "sequentially" or "separately," which may support an argument that the actions can be performed contemporaneously or through a single user gesture.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process as: "After the user has accessed the JumpCity Web site 108, a jump code is entered..." (’835 Patent, col. 7:60-62). This language, along with descriptions of entering the code into an "on-screen HTML box or form" (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5), suggests a two-step process that is fundamentally different from clicking a pre-packaged hyperlink.

"published compilation of preselected Internet locations"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the "compilation" is foundational to the claim. The dispute will question whether a series of ephemeral social media posts can constitute the type of "published compilation" envisioned by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction from another case: "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites..." (Compl. ¶13.a). This broad definition may be read to encompass a corporate Twitter feed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment is a physical book ("book 110") containing curated "reviews of Web sites" selected based on criteria like content, usefulness, and professional design (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-60, col. 6:26-55). This could support an argument that a "compilation" requires a level of curation, editorial selection, and permanence not present in a stream of social media advertisements.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for inducement or contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c). Instead, it alleges direct infringement under § 271(a) based on a theory of divided infringement, asserting that Defendant is "vicariously liable" for the actions of the user and the third-party link shortening service, Sprinklr (Compl. ¶¶13.d-f). This liability is predicated on an alleged agreement with Sprinklr and on "conditioning participation in an activity" for the end user (Compl. ¶¶6.d-e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of divided infringement: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that Cracker Barrel directed or controlled the actions of both the end-user clicking the link and the third-party service provider (Sprinklr) to the degree required by the Federal Circuit's Akamai standard, such that all steps of the method claim can be attributed to a single actor?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of procedural equivalence: Does a user's single click on a modern, all-in-one hyperlink constitute the distinct steps of "accessing" an intermediary location and then "entering" a code into it, as described in the patent? The court will have to decide if the accused one-step, automated process is the same as the two-step, manual process claimed.
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can a curated "published compilation" of "preselected" websites, as described in the patent, be construed to cover a modern, dynamic social media feed of advertisements? This will test the boundary between the patent's original context and current internet technology.