Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Boeing

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Boeing Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-04579, N.D. Ill., 07/02/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining its corporate headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system of directing users to its website via shortened links posted on social media infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to access preselected internet locations.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses early World Wide Web navigation challenges, proposing a directory-based system to simplify accessing websites with long or complex addresses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that certain key claim phrases were construed in a prior proceeding in the District of Delaware on January 4, 2009, and presents its infringement arguments based on those constructions. The infringement theory relies on a joint-infringement doctrine where Defendant is allegedly liable for the actions of end-users and third-party service providers.

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 (’835 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the early era of the World Wide Web, navigating to specific websites was difficult due to the "confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands" that made up a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) ('835 Patent, col. 4:53-56). The patent notes that typing these URLs was an "error-prone, tedious and confusing" task for users (col. 6:13-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to bypass manual URL entry. It involves a "published compilation," such as a printed book, containing reviews of selected websites, where each website is assigned a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 6:15-18, Claim 11). A user first accesses a single, specialized "predetermined published Internet location" (e.g., "JumpCity.com"), enters the simple jump code from the publication, and software at the specialized location automatically converts the code into the full destination URL and connects the user to the desired website ('835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-56).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide a user-friendly, curated "directory of the well-thought out and useful sites" to improve the user experience and simplify web navigation at a time when modern search engine technology was not widely available or effective ('835 Patent, col. 4:11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 ('835 Patent, col. 9:1-29; Compl. ¶13).
• Essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, said published compilation including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code assigned to each of said preselected Internet locations published therein;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location having an address published in said published compilation, said predetermined Internet location comprising means for capturing a desired multi-digit jump code... being entered by a user;
  • accessing said predetermined Internet location and entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location;
  • receiving said multi-digit jump code... after said multi-digit jump code has been captured;
  • converting the received multi-digit jump code to a URL address corresponding to the desired preselected Internet location; and
  • automatically accessing said desired preselected Internet location using said 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 ("@Boeing") in conjunction with a link shortening service provider (e.g., Bitly) to direct users to its website, www.boeing.com, and related URLs (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes advertisements on Twitter which contain shortened links (e.g., bit.ly links) (Compl. ¶13a). When a user clicks such a link, they are taken to an intermediary location (the link shortening service), which then automatically redirects the user's browser to a destination page on a Boeing-controlled website (Compl. ¶¶ 13c-g). The complaint characterizes the shortened alpha-numeric code within the link (e.g., "117cBdR") as the "jump code" and the link shortening service as the "predetermined Internet location" for capturing and converting the code (Compl. ¶¶ 13b-c).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Claim Chart Summary:

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether claim terms from the 1996-era patent can be construed to cover modern web technologies. Specifically, whether a "published compilation" (described in the patent as a printed book) reads on a dynamic Twitter feed, and whether an algorithmically generated alphanumeric string from a URL shortener constitutes a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" (described in the patent as a "four-digit" code).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory hinges on establishing joint infringement, where Defendant is held directly liable for the actions of end-users and the third-party link shortening service. A central question will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual basis to establish that Defendant "directs or controls" the actions of these other parties, as required by the doctrine set forth in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint’s reliance on a standard terms-of-service agreement as the basis for vicarious liability for Bitly's actions may be a focal point of dispute (Compl. ¶13e, 13f).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the infringement theory equates a Twitter feed with the "published compilation" described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if there is a technological mismatch between the patent's disclosure and the accused instrumentality.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction from a different case defining the phrase as "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites..." (Compl. ¶13a). Plaintiff will argue this construction is broad enough to cover any publicly available list, including a social media feed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes the compilation as a "printed publication or book" containing "reviews" of websites, suggesting a static, curated, and edited collection, rather than a dynamic and ephemeral feed of short messages ('835 Patent, col. 5:52-53, col. 6:12-15).

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

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine whether an alphanumeric string from a modern URL shortener (e.g., "117cBdR") falls within the claim scope. The patent's examples and the complaint's allegations on this point present a potential conflict.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction defining "a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13b). Plaintiff will likely argue that this allows for codes of varying length and format.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment in the specification consistently refers to a "four-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, col. 5:45, col. 6:66). Furthermore, the complaint's own example, "117cBdR," contains letters, which appears inconsistent with the cited prior construction requiring the code to consist of "more than one number" (Compl. ¶13b). A defendant may argue this shows a fundamental difference in technology and intent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint structures its argument as one of direct infringement under a theory of joint infringement, alleging that Defendant is "vicariously liable" for the actions of users and the link-shortening service provider (Compl. ¶¶ 13d-f, 14). The factual basis for this liability is alleged to be Defendant conditioning benefits on the user's performance and the existence of a service agreement between Defendant and the link shortening service (Compl. ¶¶ 13d, 13e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of joint infringement liability: Can Plaintiff establish that Boeing "directs or controls" the conduct of both end-users (who click links) and a third-party service provider (Bitly) to the degree required to hold Boeing liable for performing every step of the claimed method under the standard articulated in Akamai? The reliance on standard terms of service to establish such control for a third-party will likely be a significant point of legal argument.
• A second key issue will be one of technological scope: Can claim terms rooted in the context of a 1990s system involving printed directories and manually-entered numeric codes (e.g., "published compilation," "multi-digit jump code") be construed to cover modern, automated internet systems involving dynamic social media feeds and algorithmically-generated alphanumeric shortened links? The apparent tension between the prior claim construction cited by the Plaintiff and the real-world technical examples provided in the complaint may create a critical dispute over claim scope.