Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Petmed Express Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: PetMed Express, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 9:19-cv-80169, S.D. Fla., 02/06/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being a Florida corporation with its headquarters and an established place of business within the judicial district, thereby establishing minimum contacts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system of using third-party link shorteners in online advertising to redirect users to its website infringes a patent related to providing web access via a published list of "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a method for simplifying user navigation of the World Wide Web, dating from an era when direct URL entry was cumbersome and curated directories were a primary means of discovering content.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior claim construction order from a 2009 proceeding in the District of Delaware involving the same patent. This prior construction of key terms will likely play a significant role in the current dispute's claim construction phase.

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 section identifies the difficulty for early internet users in accessing specific websites due to Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), which are described as a "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands" that are "extremely difficult to work with" and require exact typing (’835 Patent, col. 3:54-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to bypass direct URL entry. A user first consults a "published compilation," such as a printed book, to find a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" corresponding to a desired website (’835 Patent, col. 8:12-18). The user then accesses a special "predetermined published Internet location" (e.g., a portal website) and enters this jump code. Software at the portal receives the code, looks up the corresponding full URL in a database, and automatically connects the user to the desired destination website (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:45-56).
• Technical Importance: At a time before modern search engines became dominant, this method aimed to provide a user-friendly "directory of the well-thought out and useful sites" to help users navigate the web and avoid the "frustrating and information starving experience" of browsing useless link pages (’835 Patent, col. 4:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with unique multi-digit jump codes.
  • providing a predetermined Internet location with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user.
  • accessing the predetermined location and entering the jump code.
  • receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined location.
  • converting the jump code to a corresponding URL address.
  • automatically accessing the desired 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 PetMed’s system for advertising and directing traffic to its website, www.1800petmeds.com, and related URLs (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "distributes advertisements through various media," such as its Twitter account, which "instruct recipients to enter a code to redirect to a new location" (Compl. ¶6). The system's operation is alleged to involve Defendant publishing a link from a third-party link shortening service (e.g., "buff.ly") that contains a code (e.g., "29XIlWv"). When a user clicks this link, the link shortening service receives the code, converts it to a destination URL on Defendant's website, and automatically redirects the user's browser to that destination (Compl. ¶¶ 13b-g).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Divided Infringement: The infringement theory relies on actions performed by three separate entities: the Defendant (publishing), the end-user (clicking/entering), and a third-party service provider (receiving, converting, redirecting). The complaint cites Akamai and alleges vicarious liability, raising the central question of whether Defendant's actions constitute sufficient direction or control over the user and third-party service to attribute their actions to Defendant for purposes of direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 13d-f, 14).
• Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether a modern URL shortener link (e.g., "buff.ly/29XIlWv") falls within the patent's claim scope. This raises several sub-questions: Does an alphanumeric string like "29XIlWv" meet the definition of a "multi-digit jump code"? Does a user's single click on a hyperlink constitute "entering" a code "into" a location, as distinct from the manual input suggested by the patent? Does a dynamic Twitter feed constitute a "published compilation"?
• Technical Questions: What evidence shows that Defendant's "agreement" with the link shortening service, cited as the provider's terms of service, establishes the master-servant relationship or joint enterprise required to prove direction or control for divided infringement? (Compl. ¶¶ 13e-f).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the accused system uses modern alphanumeric short-codes (e.g., "29XIlWv"), whereas the patent's embodiment describes a "four-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 5:60-61). The complaint relies on a prior construction defining the term as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" to argue that alphanumeric codes infringe (Compl. ¶13b). Practitioners may focus on whether "number" in that construction can encompass alphabetic characters.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers generally to "unique jump codes," and the overall purpose is to replace long, complex URLs with any shorter, easier-to-use identifier (’835 Patent, Abstract). The complaint's citation to a prior construction defining it as a code of "more than one number" will be a key argument for a broader reading (Compl. ¶13b).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment repeatedly and exclusively refers to a "four-digit jump code" and a "four digit number" (’835 Patent, col. 5:60-61, 5:66; Claim 9). This consistent usage could support an argument that the invention was limited to purely numeric codes.

• The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on equating a user's click on a hyperlink with the affirmative act of "entering" a code. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this modern, integrated action is equivalent to the more distinct, two-step process described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the method of entry. An argument could be made that any user action that causes the code to be transmitted to the "predetermined location" for processing constitutes "entering."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the code being "entered in a standard on-screen HTML box or form" (’835 Patent, col. 7:4-5). This suggests a manual input step separate from the act of accessing the location, which is distinct from a user clicking a single link that performs both functions automatically.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint structures its claim as one for direct infringement under a divided infringement theory, alleging Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of users and a third-party link shortening service (Compl. ¶¶ 13d-f, 14). The factual allegations supporting this—that Defendant conditions benefits on a user's performance and relies on an agreement with the third party—could potentially also be used to support a claim for induced infringement, though one is not explicitly pleaded (Compl. ¶¶ 13d, 13e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• A central legal question will be one of divided infringement: does the complaint plausibly allege that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users and a third-party link shortening service to the degree required by the Akamai standard, such that all steps of the claimed method can be attributed to Defendant as a single actor?
• A key technical and legal question will be one of claim scope: can the patent's terminology, conceived in the context of manual-entry web directories (e.g., "published compilation", "entering" a "multi-digit jump code"), be construed to read on the modern, automated functionality of a social media feed where users click integrated, alphanumeric short-links managed by a third-party service?
• An important evidentiary issue will be the role of prior litigation: how will the 2009 claim construction of key terms from the Delaware court—which predates modern social media and the Federal Circuit's Akamai decision—be applied to the facts of this case and the current state of infringement law?