Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Abbott Laboratories

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Abbott Laboratories (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-04022, N.D. Ill., 05/26/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant is an Illinois corporation that is registered to do business and maintains its headquarters in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of link-shortening services (e.g., Bitly) in its social media posts infringes a patent related to using short "jump codes" to access web locations.
• Technical Context: The patent describes a pre-Web 2.0 system for simplifying internet navigation by replacing long, complex URLs with short, manually-entered codes that redirect a user to the desired website.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on January 4, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware construed key claim terms from the patent-in-suit in a related proceeding. 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 identifies the difficulty for early internet users in navigating the web, describing URLs as a "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands... which are extremely difficult to work with" and noting that browsing the then-100,000+ websites could be a "frustrating and information starving experience." (’835 Patent, col. 4:55-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify this process. It involves a "published compilation," such as a printed book, containing a curated list of websites and their corresponding "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code[s]." (’835 Patent, col. 4:42-48). A user accesses a central, specialized website (referred to as "JumpCity"), manually enters the short code from the publication, and software on the central website automatically converts the code into the full destination URL and redirects the user. (’835 Patent, col. 5:35-42, 5:61-65). This obviates the need for the user to type in the long, error-prone URL.
• Technical Importance: At a time before modern search engines became dominant, this method offered a curated and simplified directory for web navigation, analogous to using a phone book to find a business instead of needing to know its precise street address. (’835 Patent, col. 4:10-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 11. (Compl. ¶10).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • 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;
  • 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;
  • accessing said predetermined Internet location and entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location;
  • receiving said multi-digit jump code entered into said predetermined Internet location;
  • converting the received multi-digit jump code to a URL address corresponding to the desired preselected Internet location; and
  • automatically accessing said desired preselected Internet location using said URL address.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the method by which Defendant Abbott Laboratories uses its Twitter accounts ("@AbbottNews" and "@AbbottGlobal") in conjunction with a third-party link shortening service, identified as "e.g., Bitly," to direct users to internet content. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 10a-c).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Abbott publishes information, such as advertisements, on its Twitter feed. (Compl. ¶10a). These publications include shortened URLs (e.g., bit.ly links) that, when clicked by a user, cause the link shortening service to automatically redirect the user to a destination website. (Compl. ¶10d, 10g). This process is alleged to be part of Abbott's promotional activities. (Compl. ¶10d).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question is whether a dynamic social media feed (Twitter) qualifies as "a published compilation" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which provides the example of a printed book. (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-61). Another scope question is whether an alphanumeric string like "2kGNh7Q" (Compl. ¶10b) meets the definition of a "multi-digit jump code," particularly when a prior court allegedly construed a similar term to mean a code "consisting of more than one number." (Compl. ¶10b).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether a user’s single click on a hyperlink that contains an alphanumeric code is equivalent to the claimed step of "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location." The patent specification appears to describe a distinct two-step action: navigating to a portal site and then manually inputting a code into a form. (’835 Patent, col. 7:4-9). The complaint's theory appears to merge these distinct actions into a single click, raising a question of technical equivalence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This step is performed by the user, and Defendant's liability is alleged to be vicarious. (Compl. ¶10d). The interpretation of "entering" is therefore critical to determining whether the accused one-click process infringes a claim that appears to describe manual data entry.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not cite intrinsic evidence to support its interpretation that clicking a link constitutes "entering" a code. A party might argue that in a modern context, a click is the functional equivalent of a command to "enter" the data contained within the hyperlink.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests manual entry, describing how a user "enters the desired jump codes" with a "remote control which is similar to a standard television channel selector" or a keyboard. (’835 Patent, col. 5:1-7). It also specifies that "The code is entered in a standard on-screen HTML box or form." (’835 Patent, col. 7:4-6). This language may support a narrower construction requiring active input by the user into a distinct data field, rather than a passive click on an integrated link.

• The Term: "a published compilation of preselected Internet locations"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the "compilation" defines the starting point of the patented method. Whether Defendant's Twitter feed meets this limitation is a threshold infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a dynamic, real-time feed is analogous to the static, curated lists described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint relies on a prior court's construction: "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites." (Compl. ¶10a). This broad definition could arguably encompass a Twitter feed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the example of a "printed publication or book" which "contains a plurality of reviews of Web sites." (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-59). This suggests a finite, curated, and formally published collection, which may be argued as distinct from an ephemeral social media stream.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts direct infringement under a divided infringement theory, citing Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (Compl. ¶11). To establish vicarious liability for the actions of end-users and the third-party link shortening service, the complaint alleges that Defendant (a) "condition[s] participation in an activity" upon the user's performance of the clicking step, and (b) has an "agreement" with the link shortening service (Bitly), evidenced by its public terms of service. (Compl. ¶¶ 10d, 10e, 10f).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the following central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of technical and temporal translation: Can the patent’s multi-step method—written in the 1990s to describe a user navigating to a portal and manually typing a code—be construed to read on the modern, integrated, single-click functionality of a URL shortening service? The interpretation of the "entering" step will be paramount.

2. A key question will be one of divided infringement: Does Abbott’s use of a public platform (Twitter) and a third-party service (Bitly) under standard terms of service establish the specific direction or control over both end-users and Bitly that is legally required to hold Abbott liable for their combined actions?

3. Finally, a dispositive issue may be one of claim scope: Can a dynamic Twitter feed be considered "a published compilation," and can an alphanumeric string be considered a "multi-digit jump code" under a prior construction that specified "more than one number"? The answers will likely define the boundaries of the asserted claim.