Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Lifeway Foods Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Lifeway Foods, Inc. (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-07536, N.D. Ill., 11/14/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business and a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of URL shortening services in its online advertising infringes a patent related to a system for accessing internet locations using simplified "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The case centers on applying patent claims, drafted in the era of early web directories, to the modern technological context of social media marketing and dynamic URL shortening services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that key terms from the patent-in-suit were previously construed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a related proceeding on January 4, 2009. These prior constructions 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, Issued April 11, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In the mid-1990s, the World Wide Web was growing exponentially, but accessing specific websites required users to type long, confusing, and error-prone Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) (’835 Patent, col. 4:56-65). Finding high-quality, useful content among the vast number of sites was described as a "frustrating and information starving experience" (’835 Patent, col. 4:5-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to simplify web navigation. The system relies on a "published compilation," such as a printed book, containing reviews of pre-selected, useful websites (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-57). Each listed website is assigned a simple, unique "multi-digit jump code." A user accesses a single, specialized "predetermined Internet location" (a portal website), enters the jump code from the publication, and software on the portal site automatically converts the code into the full URL and directs the user's browser to the desired destination, bypassing the need to manually type the complex address (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:35-50).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a curated, user-friendly navigation method analogous to a "TV Guide" for the internet, providing a simplified access layer on top of the web's increasingly complex address structure before the maturation of modern search engines (’835 Patent, col. 4:10-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-29).
• The essential steps of independent claim 11 are:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with unique multi-digit jump codes.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location (e.g., a portal website) capable of capturing a jump code.
  • A user accessing the portal and entering a desired jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code.
  • Converting the jump code to its corresponding URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the desired Internet location using the converted URL.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's method of advertising, which involves operating the website "www.lifewaykefir.com" and the Twitter account "@lifeway_kefir" (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant distributes advertisements via online media, such as Twitter, which "instruct recipients to enter a code to redirect to a new location" (Compl. ¶6). This is described as publishing a compilation of information that includes a "shortened code" (e.g., "1Oz7vcm") generated by a link shortening service like Bitly. When a user clicks the URL containing this code, they are directed to the link shortening service, which then converts the code and automatically redirects the user to a "desired Web site destination of interest" (Compl. ¶¶13a, 13b, 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 dispute will be whether the patent's claim terms, drafted for a system of curated directories and manually-assigned codes, can be read to cover the accused technology. This raises several questions:
    • Can a dynamic, user-generated feed like Twitter be considered a "published compilation of preselected Internet locations" as that term is used in the patent? (Compl. ¶13a).
    • Does an alphanumeric string generated by a URL shortener (e.g., "1Oz7vcm") meet the definition of a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code," especially in light of the prior construction cited in the complaint, which defined the term as "consisting of more than one number"? (Compl. ¶13b).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on combining the actions of three separate parties: the Defendant (publishing the link), the user (clicking it), and the link shortening service (processing the redirect). This raises a key question of divided infringement: does the complaint sufficiently allege facts to show Defendant "conditions participation in an activity...or receipt of a benefit upon performance of" the user's steps, and "establish[es] the manner or timing of that performance," as required to establish liability under the Akamai framework? (Compl. ¶13d, ¶14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: The resolution of this term is critical to determining whether the patent applies to modern online media. The infringement theory depends on casting Defendant's Twitter feed or other online advertising as the claimed "compilation."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction from a Delaware court defining the similar phrase "a published compilation of preselected Internet locations" as "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites..." (Compl. ¶13a). This broad, functional definition could support an argument that a Twitter feed qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly describes the compilation in the context of a physical, printed book containing "reviews" of websites selected based on criteria like "content," "usefulness," and "authorship" (’835 Patent, col. 5:51-57; col. 6:26-55). This could support a narrower construction requiring a curated, static, and reviewed collection, unlike a dynamic social media feed.

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

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused "codes" are modern alphanumeric strings from URL shorteners, whereas the patent's embodiment describes a "four-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 5:60).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the more general "multi-digit," which could be argued to encompass any code with multiple characters that functions as a jump code. The purpose of the code is to simplify access, a function that a shortened URL string also performs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior Delaware construction defining the phrase as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13b). A literal reading of this construction could be used to argue that an alphanumeric string like "1Oz7vcm" does not qualify. The patent's preferred embodiment consistently refers to a "four digit number" or "four-digit jump code" (’835 Patent, col. 5:45-46, col. 6:66), potentially limiting the scope to purely numeric codes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead traditional indirect infringement but instead alleges direct infringement under a theory of divided infringement, asserting that Defendant is "vicariously liable" for the infringing steps performed by end-users and third-party link shortening services (Compl. ¶¶13d, 13e, 13f). Liability for the user's actions is predicated on the allegation that Defendant conditions a benefit (access to information/promotions) on the user's performance of the clicking step, thereby establishing control under the Akamai doctrine (Compl. ¶13d). Liability for the link shortener's actions is alleged to arise from the terms-of-service agreement between Defendant and the provider (e.g., Bitly) (Compl. ¶¶13e, 13f).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.

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

This case appears to present two fundamental questions for the court:

1. A core issue will be one of technological translation and scope: Can claim terms drafted in the 1990s to describe a system of curated print directories and numeric codes, such as "published compilation" and "multi-digit jump code", be construed to encompass modern, dynamic technologies like social media feeds and alphanumeric URL shorteners, particularly given the specific prior claim constructions cited by the Plaintiff?

2. A second key issue will be one of liability for distributed actions: Does the complaint plead sufficient facts to hold the Defendant directly liable for the combined actions of itself, an end-user, and a third-party service provider under the Federal Circuit's demanding standard for divided infringement, which requires establishing direction or control over the other parties' performance of claim steps?