DCT
6:18-cv-01365
Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Universal City Development Partners Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. d/b/a Universal Orlando Resort (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-01365, M.D. Fla., 08/17/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts business with residents of the district, and directs advertisements to residents of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs in its online advertisements and social media infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to simplify access to specific internet locations.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to early methods of simplifying World Wide Web navigation, predating the dominance of modern search engines, by substituting short, memorable codes for long, complex Uniform Resource Locators (URLs).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint heavily relies on claim constructions from a 2009 proceeding in the District of Delaware involving the same patent. This prior judicial interpretation of key claim terms forms the explicit basis for the current infringement allegations, suggesting Plaintiff believes these terms are already defined in its favor.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. 6,049,835 Priority Date |
| 2000-04-11 | U.S. Patent No. 6,049,835 Issue Date |
| 2009-01-04 | Date of prior claim construction in Delaware District Court proceeding |
| 2018-08-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 describes a problem from the early era of the web: the difficulty for non-technical users in navigating to specific websites due to long, confusing, and hard-to-remember URLs. It also notes the challenge of finding high-quality "useful sites" among a rapidly growing number of low-value web pages (’835 Patent, col. 3:55-4:14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to simplify this process. A user consults a published directory (e.g., a printed book) that lists curated, pre-selected websites and assigns a unique, short "jump code" to each one ('835 Patent, col. 5:50-60). The user then accesses a single, specialized "JumpCity" website, enters the short code, and is automatically redirected to the desired destination website without ever needing to type the full, complex URL ('835 Patent, col. 5:34-43, col. 6:1-9).
- Technical Importance: The system aimed to make the web more accessible by replacing the error-prone task of typing long URLs with the simpler task of entering a short code, akin to a speed-dial function for websites.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶13).
- Essential elements of Claim 11:
- 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...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...
- converting the received multi-digit jump code to a URL address...
- automatically accessing said desired preselected Internet location using said URL address...
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's method of advertising, which involves operating the website www.universalorlando.com and related social media accounts, such as @UniversalORL on Twitter (Compl. ¶6). Specifically, the complaint targets the use of link-shortening services (e.g., Bitly) to create abbreviated links that redirect users to Defendant's web properties (Compl. ¶13.b-c).
Functionality and Market Context
Defendant allegedly posts advertisements on platforms like Twitter that include a shortened link (e.g., a bit.ly link) (Compl. ¶13.a). When a user clicks this link, their browser is first directed to the link-shortening service's server. This service's server then automatically looks up the full destination URL associated with the shortened code and redirects the user's browser to that final destination on Defendant's website (Compl. ¶13.c-g). This practice is common in digital marketing to create cleaner-looking links and track click-through metrics. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’835 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, said published compilation including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code assigned to each of said preselected Internet locations published therein | Defendant publishes advertisements on Twitter or other online media. These publications include unique, shortened codes (e.g., "1WiYiZ9" from Bitly) that are assigned to preselected internet locations. | ¶13.a, ¶13.b | col. 9:3-7 |
| 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... being entered by a user after said... location has been accessed | Defendant provides a link to an intermediary internet location (e.g., bit.ly) which is managed by a link shortening service provider. This service is characterized as having means to capture the jump code. | ¶13.c | col. 9:8-15 |
| accessing said predetermined Internet location and entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location | A user clicks on the shortened URL embedded in Defendant's advertisement, thereby accessing the predetermined Internet location (e.g., bit.ly) and entering the jump code. The complaint alleges Defendant is vicariously liable for the user's performance of this step. | ¶13.d | col. 9:16-18 |
| receiving said multi-digit jump code entered into said predetermined Internet location after said multi-digit jump code has been captured... | The link shortening service provider (Bitly) receives the multi-digit jump code entered by the user at the predetermined internet location. The complaint alleges Defendant is vicariously liable for this performance based on a service agreement between Defendant and Bitly. | ¶13.e | col. 9:19-22 |
| converting the received multi-digit jump code to a URL address corresponding to the desired preselected Internet location | The link shortening service provider (Bitly) converts the received jump code into the full destination URL. The complaint again alleges vicarious liability based on a service agreement. | ¶13.f | col. 9:23-25 |
| and automatically accessing said desired preselected Internet location using said URL address corresponding to said desired preselected Internet location corresponding to said received multi-digit jump code | The link shortening service provider (Bitly) automatically accesses (i.e., redirects the user's browser to) the desired destination URL. | ¶13.g | col. 10:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Divided Infringement: The infringement theory requires combining the actions of three separate parties: the Defendant (publishing the link), the end-user (clicking the link), and a third-party service provider, Bitly (receiving, converting, and redirecting). The complaint directly invokes the doctrine from Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., alleging that Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the user and Bitly (Compl. ¶14). The viability of this claim may depend on whether Defendant "conditions participation in an activity" or "establishes the manner or timing" of performance by the other actors, and whether its terms-of-service agreement with Bitly is sufficient to establish direction or control (Compl. ¶13.d-f).
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the act of a user clicking a single, self-contained shortened URL (e.g.,
bit.ly/xyz) is technically equivalent to the claimed method of first "accessing" an intermediary location and then separately "entering" a code into it. The patent's description suggests a two-step sequence of user actions that may not map directly onto the one-click functionality of modern URL shorteners ('835 Patent, col. 5:61-67).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused "codes" are alphanumeric strings generated by a third-party service (e.g., "1WiYiZ9"), not necessarily a purely numeric code as might be inferred from the patent's examples. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint relies on a prior construction—"a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number"—which itself could be subject to interpretation regarding whether it permits letters (Compl. ¶13.b).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "multi-digit," which does not explicitly exclude non-numeric characters. Dependent claim 19 specifies a "four digit number," which could suggest that the independent claim's "multi-digit jump code" is a broader genus not limited to numbers ('835 Patent, col. 10:19-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "four-digit jump code" as its primary example ('835 Patent, col. 5:46, 5:61, 6:66). The abstract also refers to "jump codes" in a way that implies a simple, numeric sequence. The prior construction "consisting of more than one number" could be argued to limit the code to numeric characters only.
The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute over whether the accused one-click process infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to describe a manual data entry step separate from the act of navigating to the intermediary site, whereas the accused method combines these actions into a single click.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "entering" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to encompass any technical means of supplying the code to the intermediary server, including as part of the initial HTTP request generated by a click.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a clear sequence: "After the user is on-line with the specialized JumpCity Web site 108, entering the four digit jump code will instantly link the Web site..." ('835 Patent, col. 5:61-64). This language strongly suggests a two-step process where the user first arrives at a location and then performs a separate action to "enter" the code, which differs from the integrated action of clicking a shortened link.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the entire direct infringement theory for method claim 11 is built upon a foundation of divided infringement. The complaint alleges that Defendant is liable for the actions of end-users and the third-party link shortening service (Bitly) (Compl. ¶13.d-f). It alleges this vicarious liability arises because Defendant conditions benefits on the user's performance and is bound by a terms-of-service agreement with Bitly, thereby allegedly directing or controlling the performance of all steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central legal issue will be one of divided infringement: can Plaintiff show that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users and a third-party service provider (Bitly) to the degree required by the Akamai standard to attribute all steps of the claimed method to Defendant? The court's analysis of the relationships between these three independent actors will be dispositive.
- A key claim construction question will be one of technical equivalence: does the modern, one-click process of using a URL shortening service constitute "accessing" an intermediary site and then "entering" a code into it, as contemplated by the patent? This will likely turn on whether the court views the claim as requiring two distinct user actions or allows for a broader interpretation covering a single, integrated action.
- An additional question will be one of definitional scope: does an alphanumeric string like "1WiYiZ9" meet the limitation of a "multi-digit jump code," particularly in light of the prior judicial construction requiring "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number"?