Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Allstate Insurance Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Allstate Insurance Company (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-07164, N.D. Ill., 10/04/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including its headquarters, and has directed advertisements to residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs and promotional codes in its online advertising infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to simplify access to internet locations.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for navigating the World Wide Web by using short, memorable codes as a substitute for typing long and complex Uniform Resource Locators (URLs).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, noting that on January 4, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware construed several key claim phrases. Plaintiff's inclusion of these prior constructions suggests an intent to apply them in the current proceedings.

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 early era of the World Wide Web, navigating to specific websites required the "error-prone, tedious and confusing entry of URLs" (’835 Patent, col. 7:13-15). The patent describes the difficulty for non-technical users in finding useful, high-quality content among the rapidly growing "100,000 or more Web sites" (’835 Patent, col. 4:1-2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to bypass direct URL entry. It involves a "published compilation" of curated, preselected websites, such as in a printed book or online directory (’835 Patent, col. 5:50-56). Each preselected site is assigned a unique, short "jump code." A user accesses a central, specialized website (e.g., "JumpCity"), enters the jump code, and is automatically redirected to the desired destination website (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-49).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to make the web more user-friendly by replacing difficult-to-remember URLs with simple codes, analogous to a phone book or TV guide for the internet.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 11 (Compl. ¶12).
• 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 that has means for capturing a jump code entered by a user.
  • A user accessing that predetermined location and entering the jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code.
  • Converting the received jump code into a corresponding URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the desired Internet location using that 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 system of advertising through various media, including its "@Allstate" Twitter account, which uses shortened codes and links to redirect users to specific web pages (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 12.a).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes advertisements containing shortened codes (e.g., "IpAu03") and a link to a predetermined web location (e.g., "a.ll.st") (Compl. ¶12.b-c). This location is allegedly managed by a third-party link shortening service, RadiumOne, which captures the code, converts it to a full URL, and redirects the user to a destination page (Compl. ¶12.c-g). The system is presented as part of Defendant’s promotional activities (Compl. ¶12.d).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a series of distinct social media posts on Twitter can be considered a "published compilation" as contemplated by the patent, which describes a "printed publication or book" as a primary embodiment (’835 Patent, col. 5:53). It also raises the question of whether a modern alphanumeric short-code (e.g., "IpAu03") qualifies as a "multi-digit jump code," particularly in light of the patent's emphasis on a "four-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 5:59).
  • Technical Questions: A central issue is one of divided infringement. The complaint alleges that three separate entities—the Defendant (Allstate), a third-party service provider (RadiumOne), and the end-user—collectively perform the steps of the claimed method. The legal question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant directs or controls the actions of the other parties under the standard set forth in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Compl. ¶13).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "published compilation"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the infringement theory rests on Defendant’s Twitter feed or other online advertisements constituting a "compilation." Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the patent’s illustrative embodiment of a static, printed book and the accused instrumentality of dynamic, ephemeral social media posts. The complaint itself highlights the term's importance by citing a prior judicial construction (Compl. ¶12.a).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 7, which depends from Claim 1, specifies that the compilation can be "published on-line in said predetermined published Internet location on the Internet," suggesting the patent is not limited to physical media (’835 Patent, col. 8:56-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses a "printed publication or book 110" as its primary example of the compilation, which could support a narrower construction requiring a more formally collected and organized body of information than a series of tweets (’835 Patent, col. 5:53-56, Fig. 1).

• The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

  • Context and Importance: The accused codes are alphanumeric (e.g., "IpAu03") (Compl. ¶12.c). The patent’s validity and infringement may depend on whether "multi-digit" can encompass letters or is limited to numerals.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "digit" itself can be argued to refer to any single character in a code. The claim uses the general term "multi-digit jump code" without an explicit limitation to numbers.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to a "four-digit jump code" and dependent Claim 9 explicitly claims a "four digit number," suggesting that the inventor may have contemplated a purely numeric system (’835 Patent, col. 5:59; col. 8:62-63). The prior construction cited in the complaint—"a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number"—may be pivotal (Compl. ¶12.c).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. Instead, it asserts direct infringement under a theory of divided infringement, alleging that Defendant is vicariously liable for the steps performed by end-users and the third-party service provider, RadiumOne (Compl. ¶12.d-g). The basis for this liability is alleged to be an agreement between Defendant and RadiumOne, and Defendant's conditioning of a benefit (promotional offerings) on the user's performance of the required steps (Compl. ¶12.d-f).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include allegations of willful infringement.

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

1. A core issue will be one of divided infringement: Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users and the third-party link-shortening service (RadiumOne) to a degree sufficient to attribute their actions to Defendant for a finding of direct infringement under the Akamai framework? The alleged agreement with RadiumOne and the "conditioning" of a benefit for users will be central to this inquiry.
2. The case will also involve a question of technological evolution and claim scope: Can the term "published compilation", conceived in the context of a printed directory, be construed to cover a dynamic series of online advertisements? Similarly, does an alphanumeric short-code meet the definition of a "multi-digit jump code", especially in light of the prior judicial construction cited by the Plaintiff?
3. A significant procedural question will be the effect of prior claim construction: How will the court treat the constructions from the prior Delaware litigation that Plaintiff has affirmatively included in its complaint? The extent to which these prior rulings are adopted or relitigated will substantially shape the infringement and validity disputes.