Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-07236, N.D. Ill., 10/06/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining its principal place of business, headquarters, and a designated agent for service in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs on social media platforms to direct users to web content infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" for simplified internet navigation.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses early-internet usability challenges, proposing a system to replace long, difficult-to-type URLs with simple, pre-published codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, citing specific claim construction rulings from a January 4, 2009, order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff appears to be leveraging these prior constructions in its 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," issued April 11, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty for non-technical users in the 1990s to navigate the World Wide Web, which required the "error-prone, tedious and confusing entry of URLs" to access websites ('835 Patent, col. 7:13-15). The sheer volume of websites made finding useful content a "frustrating and information starving experience" ('835 Patent, col. 4:5-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system to simplify web access by creating a "published compilation" (e.g., a printed book or directory) of preselected websites, each assigned a "unique multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 5:50-65). A user would first navigate to a single, "specialized Web site" (e.g., "JumpCity"), enter a code from the directory, and software on that specialized site would automatically convert the code into the full destination URL and redirect the user's browser, eliminating the need to type the complex URL ('835 Patent, col. 5:35-49, 7:4-9). This process is illustrated in the system diagrams of Figures 1 and 2 ('835 Patent, Fig. 1-2).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide a user-friendly "front door" to the web, analogous to a TV guide, making the then-burgeoning internet more accessible to a mass audience accustomed to simpler interfaces ('835 Patent, col. 2:7-14).

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 (a portal) with means for capturing a jump code.
  • a user accessing the portal and entering the desired jump code.
  • receiving the entered jump code at the portal.
  • converting the received jump code to a corresponding URL address.
  • automatically accessing the desired Internet location using the 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 CME's system for promoting its content, which involves operating the website "www.cmegroup.com", the Twitter account "@CMEGroup", and using third-party link shortening services (e.g., "ow.ly", managed by Hootsuite) (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 12.c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that CME publishes advertisements and information on social media, such as Twitter, that include shortened URLs (e.g., "ow.ly/10zjOe") (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 12.a-b). When a user clicks on one of these shortened links, the link shortening service automatically redirects the user's browser to a preselected destination page, such as a specific article or section on the "cmegroup.com" website (Compl. ¶12.c-g). This use of social media and link shorteners is a standard method for modern digital marketing and content distribution. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether the claim term "entering" a code can be met by a user clicking a hyperlink, where no manual character input occurs. The patent specification describes entering a code into an "on-screen HTML box or form" ('835 Patent, col. 7:4-6), which suggests a different user action. A further question is whether a dynamic Twitter feed constitutes a "published compilation" in the manner of the static, book-like directory described in the patent's preferred embodiment ('835 Patent, col. 5:50-57).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on mapping the components of a modern URL shortening service onto the patent's disclosed system. This raises the question of whether there is a functional mismatch between a system where a user manually enters a code into a central portal ("JumpCity") and one where the "code" and "portal" are combined into a single, clickable hyperlink that is processed by a distributed, third-party service.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint bases its infringement theory on claim constructions from a 2009 Delaware proceeding (Compl. ¶12). The application of these constructions to the accused technology will be critical.

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

• Context and Importance: This term's scope is foundational. The infringement theory depends on casting Defendant's Twitter feed as the claimed "compilation." The defense may argue that a dynamic, real-time social media feed is distinct from the curated, static directory contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction: "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites..." (Compl. ¶12.a). Plaintiff will argue its Twitter feed meets this definition. The patent also mentions that the compilation could be published "on-line" ('835 Patent, col. 8:56-59), which supports a non-physical embodiment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's preferred embodiment is a physical, printed publication, referred to as a "book 110" that contains "reviews of Web sites" ('835 Patent, col. 5:50-60). A party could argue the term implies a finite, curated, and formally published collection, not an ephemeral stream of posts.

The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: This term is pivotal because the accused user action is clicking a link, not typing a code. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "entering" requires manual input, a core step of the infringement theory may fail.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims do not specify the method of entry. Plaintiff may argue that clicking a link is a modern, functional equivalent of causing the code to be transmitted for processing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "The code is entered in a standard on-screen HTML box or form which is then read by software resident on the JumpCity specialized Web site" ('835 Patent, col. 7:4-6). This language strongly suggests manual input into a specific interface element, an action distinct from clicking a hyperlink.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint structures its allegations as direct infringement under a theory of divided infringement, citing Akamai (Compl. ¶13). It alleges Defendant is liable for the actions of users and third-party service providers (Hootsuite) because it "condition[s] participation in an activity...or receipt of a benefit" on the user performing the clicking step and establishes the "manner or timing" of the performance (Compl. ¶12.d). It further alleges liability for Hootsuite's actions is based on the existence of an "agreement" between Hootsuite and Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 12.e, 12.f). These allegations lay the factual groundwork for attributing the actions of multiple parties to the Defendant.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

1. A central issue will be one of divided infringement: Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users (who click the links) and the third-party link-shortening service (Hootsuite) to the degree required by the Akamai standard, thereby making Defendant liable for a method it does not perform in its entirety? The alleged "agreement" with Hootsuite will be a key factual focus.

2. The case will also turn on a question of technological translation and claim scope: Does the act of a user clicking a self-contained, shortened hyperlink on Twitter constitute "entering" a "jump code" into a "predetermined Internet location" as those terms are used in the patent? The court's decision may depend on whether it views the modern, automated process as a mere evolution of the patented method or as a fundamentally different technology that falls outside the claim's scope.

3. Finally, a key legal question will be the application of prior claim construction: How will the court apply the 2009 claim construction rulings from the District of Delaware to the distinct technology of modern URL shorteners? The parties will likely dispute whether those constructions, developed in a different context, are dispositive or merely persuasive in this case.