Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Caterpillar Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Caterpillar Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-07207, N.D. Ill., 10/05/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of URL shortening services (e.g., Bitly) in its social media marketing infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to access preselected Internet locations.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses early-internet challenges of navigating to websites with long, complex URL addresses by proposing a system of simplified codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case involving the same patent, noting that on January 4, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware construed several key claim phrases, which Plaintiff now applies to its current allegations. This history may influence how the present court approaches claim construction.

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 describes the difficulty for early internet users in accessing specific websites due to their long, confusing, and error-prone URL addresses ('835 Patent, col. 4:54-65). It notes that navigating the web could be a "frustrating and information starving experience" ('835 Patent, col. 4:5-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify web navigation. A user would consult a "published compilation," such as a printed guide, to find a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" associated with a desired website ('835 Patent, col. 6:7-15). The user would then access a single, specialized website (e.g., "JumpCity.com") and enter this code. Software on the specialized site would receive the code, look up the corresponding full URL in a database, and automatically redirect the user's browser to the desired destination, bypassing the need to manually type the complex URL ('835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:45-56).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide users with a "much more easily and conveniently" accessible method for reaching desired web content compared to the "error-prone, tedious and confusing entry of URLs" ('835 Patent, col. 7:10-15).

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, including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code for each location;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user;
  • accessing the predetermined Internet location and entering the jump code;
  • receiving the entered jump code;
  • converting the received jump code to a corresponding URL address; and
  • 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's method of using its Twitter account ("@CaterpillarInc") in conjunction with third-party link shortening services (e.g., Bitly) to direct users to content on its website, www.caterpillar.com (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant posts content on Twitter which includes shortened URLs generated by services like Bitly (Compl. ¶12.a-b). When a user clicks one of these shortened links, their browser is first directed to the link shortening service provider. That service then automatically redirects the browser to a final destination page, typically on Defendant's own website (Compl. ¶12.c-g). This practice is a common method for sharing links on character-limited platforms like Twitter and for tracking engagement metrics. The complaint asserts that this entire process, involving actions by the Defendant, the user, and the link shortening service, constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 6,049,835 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Divided Infringement: The complaint's theory requires combining the actions of three separate entities: Defendant (publishing), the end-user (clicking/accessing), and a third-party service like Bitly (receiving, converting, redirecting). The complaint asserts direct infringement under the doctrine from Akamai, alleging Defendant is vicariously liable for the other parties' actions (Compl. ¶¶ 12.d-f, 13). A central question will be whether Plaintiff can prove Defendant "conditions participation in an activity" or establishes the "manner or timing" of performance sufficient to hold it responsible for the actions of users and third-party services.
  • Scope Questions: Does an alphanumeric string generated by a URL shortener (e.g., "1t8zasQ") meet the definition of a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code"? The complaint alleges it does, but simultaneously cites a prior court construction defining the term as "consisting of more than one number," which raises a potential inconsistency (Compl. ¶12.b).
  • Technical Questions: Does a user clicking a hyperlink constitute "accessing" a first location and then "entering" a code, as required by the claim? Or is it a single, integrated action that does not map onto the distinct steps of the claimed method? The patent describes a user first navigating to a portal and then separately inputting a code ('835 Patent, col. 5:35-38, 6:65-68), which may differ from the accused process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical to determining if a modern alphanumeric shortened URL (e.g., a bit.ly link) can be considered a "jump code." The complaint alleges an alphanumeric string like "1t8zasQ" infringes, while also citing a prior construction that defined the term as a code "consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶12.b). This apparent contradiction suggests the term's scope will be a primary focus of dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to simplify access from long URLs, a function that alphanumeric shorteners perform. The term "multi-digit" is not explicitly defined in the specification, which a party might argue leaves it open to encompass characters that function as digits in a base system higher than 10.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "four-digit jump code" and a "four digit number," suggesting a purely numeric code was contemplated ('835 Patent, col. 4:59; col. 5:61; col. 6:66). The complaint's reliance on a prior construction requiring "more than one number" could be used to argue that non-numeric characters fall outside the scope.

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

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on casting Defendant's Twitter feed as a "published compilation." Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of a dynamic, real-time social media feed may not align with the patent's description of a more static, curated list.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction defining the term as "a publicly accessible collection of information" (Compl. ¶12.a), which could arguably include a Twitter feed. The patent also mentions the list could be published "on-line" ('835 Patent, col. 8:57-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is a printed book or guide containing reviews of selected websites ('835 Patent, col. 5:51-65). A party could argue that a "compilation" implies a finite, collected work, unlike an ever-updating, user-driven social media stream.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). Instead, it advances a theory of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by alleging that Defendant is vicariously liable for the performance of method steps by other parties (the user and a third-party link shortening service), per the standard articulated in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶13). The factual basis for this liability is alleged to be Defendant "conditioning participation in an activity" upon the user's performance and the existence of an "agreement" (terms of service) between Defendant and the link shortening service (Compl. ¶¶ 12.d-f).

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

• A core issue will be one of divided infringement liability: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users and third-party services like Bitly to the extent required by the Akamai standard, thereby making Defendant liable for a method it does not perform in its entirety?
• A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "multi-digit jump code", previously construed by a court to mean a code "consisting of more than one number," be interpreted to read on the alphanumeric strings generated by modern URL shortening services?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional mapping: Is the modern, integrated process of clicking a single hyperlink functionally equivalent to the patent's described multi-step process of a user consulting a list, navigating to a distinct portal, and manually inputting a code, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?