Internet Media Interactive Corp v. American Intercontinental University Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: American Intercontinental University, Inc. (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-07168, N.D. Ill., 10/04/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining its principal place of business and headquarters in Illinois, having registered an agent for service of process in the state, and directing business activities toward residents of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of third-party URL shortening services (e.g., ow.ly) in its online advertising infringes a patent related to using short "jump codes" to access specific Internet locations.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses early-internet navigation challenges, aiming to replace long, difficult-to-type URLs with short, memorable codes for user convenience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that key claim phrases were previously construed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 4, 2009, in a proceeding related to the patent-in-suit. The outcome of that prior construction may significantly influence the interpretation of claim scope in this case.

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: In the early era of the World Wide Web, accessing specific websites required users to manually and precisely type long, complex, and often confusing Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), a task described as "error-prone, tedious and confusing" ('835 Patent, col. 6:13-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to simplify this process. A publisher would create a compilation, such as a printed book or directory, of preselected, interesting websites ('835 Patent, col. 5:51-56). Each listed website is assigned a unique, short "jump code." A user accesses a single "specialized Web site" (e.g., "JumpCity"), enters the jump code from the directory into a form, and is then automatically redirected to the corresponding destination website, bypassing the need to ever type the long URL ('835 Patent, col. 5:35-43, col. 5:65-68).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a user-friendly navigation shortcut for non-technical users at a time when web search engines were less sophisticated and direct navigation was common.

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 with an assigned unique multi-digit jump code for each.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location (with a published address) that has means for capturing a user-entered jump code.
  • A user accessing that predetermined location and entering the jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined location.
  • Converting the received jump code to the corresponding destination URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the destination location using that converted URL.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's advertising and marketing system, specifically its use of advertisements on platforms like Twitter that employ shortened URLs generated by services such as ow.ly (managed by Hootsuite) to direct users to Defendant's web properties (Compl. ¶6, ¶12.a-c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes advertisements (the "compilation") containing shortened links (e.g., ow.ly/M37B300i8KW) (Compl. ¶12.a, ¶12.b). It frames the link shortening service (ow.ly) as the "predetermined Internet location" and the unique alphanumeric string within the shortened URL (e.g., "M37B300i8KW") as the "multi-digit jump code" (Compl. ¶12.b, ¶12.c). When a user clicks the link, the service provider (e.g., Hootsuite) allegedly receives and converts the code into the full destination URL for one of Defendant's websites and automatically redirects the user's browser (Compl. ¶12.e-g).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the "predetermined Internet location" described in the patent (a user-facing website like "JumpCity" where codes are manually entered) can be construed to cover a back-end, automated link-shortening service like ow.ly. The infringement theory appears to merge the "jump code" and the "location" into a single clickable hyperlink, which raises a question of consistency with the patent's description of two distinct components.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on a divided performance of the method steps among Defendant, the end-user, and a third-party service provider (Hootsuite). A key question for the court will be whether Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded facts to hold Defendant liable for the actions of the user and Hootsuite under the framework for divided infringement articulated in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges vicarious liability based on an agreement with Hootsuite and on Defendant conditioning a benefit upon the user's performance (Compl. ¶12.d-f).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. The infringement case depends on whether the alphanumeric strings in modern shortened URLs (e.g., "M37B300i8KW") qualify as "multi-digit jump codes." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint itself introduces a potential conflict by citing a prior Delaware court construction: "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶12.b). The accused codes contain letters, which appears to contradict that construction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's overall goal is to provide a shortcut to avoid typing long URLs ('835 Patent, col. 4:10-14). An argument could be made that any short, unique character string that functions as such a shortcut falls within the spirit of the invention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the example of a "four-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 5:45, col. 5:60-61, col. 5:66). The asserted claim uses the term "multi-digit," which may imply a purely numeric composition. The prior court construction explicitly requiring "more than one number" provides strong evidence for a narrow, numeric-only interpretation.

• The Term: "predetermined Internet location"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine if a modern, distributed link-shortening service can be equated with the centralized, user-facing portal described in the patent. The patent's embodiment is a specific website that a user navigates to and interacts with, whereas the accused service is an automated, intermediary redirector.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. One could argue any network-accessible entity that performs the claimed function of "capturing" a code and initiating a redirection qualifies as a "location."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a specific "specialized Web site" called "JumpCity" that a user accesses and into which a code is entered via an "on-screen HTML box or form" ('835 Patent, col. 5:35-38, col. 6:5-9). This suggests the "location" is an interactive destination, not an automated pass-through service.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead traditional indirect infringement but instead advances a theory of direct infringement under a divided infringement framework. It alleges Defendant is "vicariously liable" for the steps performed by end-users and the third-party link shortening service (Hootsuite) (Compl. ¶12.d, 12.e). The basis for this liability is an alleged agreement between Defendant and Hootsuite, and Defendant allegedly conditioning the user's receipt of information upon their performance of clicking the link (Compl. ¶12.d, 12.e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "multi-digit jump code," which a prior court construed to mean a code of "more than one number," be interpreted to cover the alphanumeric strings used in modern URL shorteners? The resolution of this apparent contradiction between the prior construction and the accused technology will be pivotal.
• A second key question involves functional and structural equivalence: is the process of a user clicking an all-in-one shortened hyperlink functionally and structurally equivalent to the patent's described method of a user first navigating to a central portal website and then separately and manually entering a published code to trigger a redirection?
• Finally, the case will likely turn on a question of divided infringement liability: has the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish that the defendant "conditioned" a benefit on the user’s actions and directed the performance of the third-party service provider in a manner that makes it directly liable for all steps of the claimed method under the Akamai standard?