Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Kraft Heinz Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Kraft Heinz Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: Internet Media Interactive Corp. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, 1:17-cv-06453, N.D. Ill., 09/07/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains its headquarters and a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs on social media and in other advertisements infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to provide simplified access to internet locations.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of early-2000s web navigation by replacing long, cumbersome URLs with simple, easy-to-use codes, aiming to make the web more accessible.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior litigation involving the same patent, noting that a Delaware District Court issued claim construction rulings on January 4, 2009. The complaint also invokes the Federal Circuit's Akamai decision to support its theory of direct infringement where multiple parties perform steps of the claimed method.

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 late 1990s, the internet contained a rapidly growing number of websites, but accessing them often required users to type long, confusing, and error-prone Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) ('835 Patent, col. 4:56-65). The patent describes this as a "frustrating and information starving experience" and notes the need for a directory of "well-thought out and useful sites" ('835 Patent, col. 4:5-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify this process. A user is provided with a "published compilation" (such as a printed book) of curated websites, where each site is associated with a unique, simple "multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 5:49-56). To visit a site, the user first accesses a single, specialized "JumpCity" website. On that site, the user enters the desired jump code. Software on the JumpCity site then looks up the full URL corresponding to the code and automatically redirects the user's browser to the destination website, eliminating the need for the user to ever type the full URL ('835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-49).
• Technical Importance: This system represented an effort to make the rapidly expanding World Wide Web more accessible to non-technical users by abstracting away the complexity of URLs and providing a curated, simplified navigation method ('835 Patent, col. 4:18-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 11 ('835 Patent, col. 9:1-28; Compl. ¶12).
• 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...
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 11," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's method of advertising, which involves publishing shortened URLs (e.g., from a service like Bitly) on its "@kraftrecipes" Twitter account and other media (Compl. ¶¶6, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes social media posts containing links to its content (Compl. ¶12a). These links are shortened URLs provided by a third-party service like Bitly. When a user clicks the shortened URL, the user's browser is first directed to the link shortening service, which then automatically redirects the browser to the final destination webpage, such as one on www.kraftrecipes.com (Compl. ¶¶12c-g). The complaint asserts this multi-party process constitutes a performance of the patented method (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether claim terms from the 1990s can read on modern internet technology. Specifically, does a "published compilation," envisioned in the patent as a printed book or curated list, cover a dynamic Twitter feed? Further, does a "multi-digit jump code," described in the patent as a "four-digit" code, read on a computer-generated alphanumeric string in a shortened URL?
  • Technical Questions: A central question is whether a user's single click on a hyperlink constitutes the two distinct actions recited in the claim: "accessing said predetermined Internet location" and "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location." The patent specification appears to describe these as sequential, separate actions by a user ('835 Patent, col. 5:65-68), whereas the accused method involves a single user action.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining whether the alphanumeric strings in modern shortened URLs (e.g., bit.ly/1PW3pGZ) fall within the claim scope. The complaint explicitly alleges that such a string is a "multi-digit jump code" (Compl. ¶12b, p.4).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction from a Delaware court defining the term as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number," which could be argued to encompass alphanumeric characters if "number" is interpreted broadly (Compl. ¶12b). The claim itself uses the general term "multi-digit," not a more restrictive term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly uses "four-digit jump code" as its primary example, suggesting the invention was contemplated for simple, numeric codes that a user could easily remember and type ('835 Patent, col. 5:45, 5:60, 5:66).

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

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine whether a single click on a hyperlink can satisfy the user-action step of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's infringement theory depends on equating a click with the affirmative act of "entering" a code.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue that by clicking the link, the user causes the code (the alphanumeric string in the URL) to be transmitted to the server, which is a form of "entering" it into the system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language ("accessing... and entering") and the patent's description of a user first navigating to a specialized website and then inputting a code suggest a two-step, manual process ('835 Patent, col. 5:65-68; Abstract). This could support an interpretation requiring a distinct action of typing or pasting the code into a form field after arriving at the "predetermined Internet location."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead traditional indirect infringement. Instead, it advances a theory of direct infringement under the doctrine of divided infringement articulated in Akamai v. Limelight, where a defendant can be held directly liable for the performance of method steps by third parties (such as users and service providers) if the defendant "conditions" participation or benefit upon performance of the steps or forms an agency relationship (Compl. ¶¶12d-f, 13). The complaint alleges vicarious liability based on both conditioning a user's access to promotional offerings and an "agreement" with the link shortening service (Bitly's public terms of service) (Compl. ¶¶12d, 12e).

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

• A central issue will be one of divided infringement: can Plaintiff successfully attribute the actions of end-users (clicking a link) and a third-party service provider (Bitly's redirect) to Defendant under the Akamai framework? This will depend on whether Defendant's use of Bitly's standard service and its encouragement of user clicks establish the requisite level of direction or control.
• The case will also turn on a question of technological and temporal scope: can claim terms drafted for a 1990s-era system of curated directories and manually entered numeric codes be construed to cover the automated processes of modern URL shortening on dynamic social media platforms? The outcome will likely depend on the construction of "published compilation" and "multi-digit jump code."
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does a user's single click on an embedded hyperlink perform the distinct, sequential claimed steps of first "accessing" a location and then "entering" a code into it, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused action and the claimed method?