Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Hyatt Hotels Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hyatt Hotels Corporation and Hyatt Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00500, N.D. Ill., 01/23/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants maintaining headquarters and a regular and established place of business in Illinois, registering to do business in the state, and directing advertisements to residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s method of using shortened URLs in online advertisements to direct users to its websites infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to access preselected internet locations.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns simplifying user access to specific World Wide Web locations by replacing long, complex URLs with shorter, more memorable codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that on January 4, 2009, in a proceeding in the District of Delaware related to the patent-in-suit, three key phrases from the asserted claim were construed by the court. These prior constructions are cited to support the current 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: In the early era of the World Wide Web, the patent's background describes the difficulty for non-technical users in navigating to specific websites (’835 Patent, col. 1:12-14). Accessing a site required typing a "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands, separated by slashes, which are extremely difficult to work with" (i.e., a URL) ('835 Patent, col. 3:55-65). This process was described as "error-prone, tedious and confusing" ('835 Patent, col. 7:13-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to bypass the manual entry of long URLs ('835 Patent, Abstract). It involves a "published list" (e.g., a printed book or an online directory) that pairs preselected, desirable websites with a "unique multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 4:55-59). A user would first navigate to a single, specialized "JumpCity" website, enter the short jump code corresponding to their desired destination, and software on the JumpCity site would automatically look up the full URL and redirect the user there ('835 Patent, col. 5:44-49).
• Technical Importance: This system aimed to make web navigation more efficient and user-friendly, abstracting away the complexity of URLs at a time when the web's rapid growth was making it both more valuable and more difficult to navigate ('835 Patent, col. 4:10-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 11 ('835 Patent, col. 9:1-29; Compl. ¶13).
• The essential steps of Claim 11 are:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations that includes a unique multi-digit jump code for each location.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location (e.g., a central website) with means for capturing a jump code.
  • A user accessing the predetermined location and entering a desired jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined location.
  • Converting the received jump code into its 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 Defendants' method of advertising and directing users to their websites, specifically through the use of their Twitter account "@HyattTweets" and other online media (Compl. ¶7, 13a).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Hyatt publishes advertisements, such as tweets, that constitute a "compilation of information with respect to preselected Internet locations" (Compl. ¶13a). These advertisements allegedly include shortened URLs (e.g., Bitly links) which function as the claimed "jump codes" (Compl. ¶13b). The complaint posits a multi-party infringement scenario where Hyatt publishes the code, a third-party link shortening service (e.g., Bitly) provides the "predetermined Internet location" for receiving and converting the code, and an end-user performs the step of accessing the location and entering the code (by clicking the link) (Compl. ¶13c, 13d).

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 "published compilation" can be read to cover a series of individual advertisements (e.g., tweets) published over time, as opposed to a discrete, collected work like the "printed publication or book" described in the patent's preferred embodiment ('835 Patent, col. 5:52). The complaint addresses this by citing a prior, allegedly favorable court construction of the term (Compl. ¶13a).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on equating a modern link-shortening service like Bitly with the patent's "predetermined published Internet location" (e.g., the "JumpCity" website) ('835 Patent, col. 5:35-37). A key question is whether the functionality is equivalent. The patent describes a central site where users manually type in a code, whereas the accused method involves a user clicking a link that contains the code, which is then processed by a distributed third-party service.
  • Legal Questions: The complaint's infringement theory is one of divided infringement, attributing the actions of the end-user and the link-shortening service (Bitly) to Hyatt ('835 Patent, ¶14). The viability of this theory will depend on whether Plaintiff can prove Hyatt "directs or controls" the other parties' performance of the method steps under the standard set forth in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. The complaint alleges vicarious liability based on Hyatt conditioning benefits on the user's action and the existence of a service agreement with Bitly (Compl. ¶13d, 13e).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint highlights several terms by citing prior constructions from another case, suggesting these will be central to the dispute.

• The Term: "a published compilation of preselected Internet locations"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether Hyatt's disparate online advertisements (e.g., tweets) can be considered the single "compilation" required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's claims do not specify the medium of publication. The specification mentions that the compilation could be published "on-line" within the predetermined Internet location itself, which could support a more dynamic, non-physical interpretation ('835 Patent, col. 8:56-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is a "printed publication or book" containing reviews and codes, suggesting a static, collected, and finite work ('835 Patent, col. 5:52-57).
• The Term: "a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code"
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine if the alphanumeric strings in modern shortened URLs (e.g., Bitly's "2a61zti") qualify as the claimed "jump code."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "multi-digit" is not explicitly limited to numerals. The patent's objective is to provide an easier alternative to a full URL, and a short alphanumeric code serves this purpose ('835 Patent, col. 7:10-15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment consistently refers to a "four-digit jump code" and a "four digit number," which may suggest the inventor contemplated a purely numeric code of a specific length ('835 Patent, col. 4:59; col. 8:64).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. Instead, it frames the case as one of direct infringement under a theory of vicarious liability, alleging that Hyatt is liable for the method steps performed by end-users and the third-party link shortening service (Compl. ¶13d-f, 14). The basis for this liability is alleged to be Hyatt conditioning a benefit (e.g., promotional offerings) on the user's clicking of the link and the existence of an agreement (terms of service) between Hyatt and the link shortening service (Compl. ¶13d, 13e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

This case appears to present a classic dispute over whether patent claims drafted in an earlier technological era can read on modern internet practices. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of divided infringement: Can the plaintiff establish that Hyatt directs or controls the actions of both the end-user (who clicks the link) and the third-party link-shortening service (which resolves the link) to such a degree that all steps of the claimed method can be attributed to Hyatt for a finding of direct infringement? The allegations of vicarious liability based on "conditioning participation" and "terms-of-service" will be heavily scrutinized.

2. A key legal and technical question will be one of claim scope and interpretation: Can the claim terms, such as "published compilation" and "multi-digit jump code," originally contemplated in the context of a central "JumpCity" website and a printed book of numeric codes, be construed to cover a collection of tweets containing alphanumeric shortened links processed by a distributed service like Bitly? The prior claim constructions cited by the plaintiff will be highly influential, but likely not dispositive, in this analysis.