Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Nuveen Investments Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Nuveen Investments, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-04136, N.D. Ill., 06/20/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's principal place of business being located in Chicago, Illinois, within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of third-party URL shortening services in its online advertising infringes a patent related to using "jump codes" to simplify access to web locations.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of complex and difficult-to-remember website URLs, proposing a system of curated directories accessed via short codes, a concept foundational to early web navigation and link management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case involving the same patent where, on January 4, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware construed key claim terms. These prior constructions are cited in the complaint to support the current infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• 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. (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of the early World Wide Web, where accessing a specific website required typing long, confusing, and error-prone Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) ('835 Patent, col. 4:55-65). This complexity, combined with a proliferation of low-quality websites, created a frustrating user experience ('835 Patent, col. 4:1-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to bypass the direct entry of long URLs. It involves a "published compilation" (e.g., a printed guide or an online list) of interesting websites, where each site is assigned a "unique multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, Abstract). A user first navigates to a single, specialized "predetermined Internet location" (e.g., "JumpCity.com") and enters the short jump code from the list. Software at the specialized location then looks up the full URL corresponding to the code and automatically redirects the user to the desired destination website ('835 Patent, col. 5:44-54; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a curated, user-friendly directory for web navigation at a time before sophisticated search engines and standardized URL shortening services became ubiquitous ('835 Patent, col. 4:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 ('835 Patent, col. 9:1-29; Compl. ¶14).
• The essential steps of independent claim 11 are:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with an associated unique multi-digit jump code for each.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location (a central website) capable of capturing a jump code.
  • A user accessing that predetermined location and entering the jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code.
  • Converting the jump code to its corresponding full URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the desired Internet location using that converted URL.
• 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 advertising through its website ("www.nuveen.com") and social media accounts (e.g., "@NuveenInv" on Twitter), which utilize shortened URLs provided by third-party services like "ow.ly", allegedly managed by Hootsuite (Compl. ¶4, ¶14.c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes online advertisements that include shortened links (e.g., an "ow.ly" link) (Compl. ¶14.a). When a user clicks this link, their browser is directed to the link shortening service ("ow.ly"), which then automatically redirects the browser to a final destination webpage, such as a page on "nuveen.com" (Compl. ¶14.d, ¶14.g). The complaint alleges that Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions performed by the user (clicking the link) and the link shortening service provider (receiving the code and redirecting) based on an alleged agreement between Defendant and the provider (Hootsuite) and by conditioning user benefits on the performance of the step (Compl. ¶14.d, ¶14.e). 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 a modern, automated URL shortening system, where the "code" and the "location" are combined in a single hyperlink, falls within the scope of the patent's claims, which describe a two-step process of going to a central site and then separately entering a code. The complaint's theory appears to conflate the claim steps of "accessing" the location and "entering" the code into a single user action (clicking a link).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that clicking a link like "ow.ly/4nkWh9" constitutes "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location." The court may need to determine if the technical reality of how HTTP requests and redirects work aligns with the specific sequence of steps recited in the claim, which appears to contemplate a user actively inputting a code into a form or field on a webpage ('835 Patent, col. 7:3-5).
• Divided Infringement: The infringement theory relies on combining the actions of three separate parties: Defendant (publishing the link), the end-user (clicking the link), and a third-party service provider (performing the redirection). The viability of this "divided infringement" theory under the Akamai framework will depend on the degree of direction, control, or joint enterprise the Plaintiff can establish between the parties (Compl. ¶15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case hinges on whether the alphanumeric strings used by modern URL shorteners (e.g., "4nkWh9") meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint itself cites a prior judicial construction that appears to be facially inconsistent with the accused technology.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to provide a simplified alternative to long URLs, a function that short alphanumeric strings also perform ('835 Patent, col. 4:15-22). The general description focuses on the concept of a "jump code" without always limiting it to numerals.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint explicitly cites a prior construction from a Delaware proceeding defining the phrase as "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶14.b). The patent specification repeatedly provides the example of a "four-digit jump code" or "four digit number" ('835 Patent, col. 4:59; col. 5:61; claim 19). The accused code ("4nkWh9") contains letters, not just numbers.

"entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation requires that a user's single click on a hyperlink be interpreted as "entering" a code "into" a location. The distinction between clicking a self-contained link and actively inputting a code at a destination site is a critical point of potential dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "entering" is a functional term and that clicking the link functionally transmits the code to the server, achieving the same result as typing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process as the code being "entered in a standard on-screen HTML box or form" after the user has already accessed the specialized website ('835 Patent, col. 7:3-5). This language suggests a manual input step that is separate from and subsequent to the initial act of accessing the website.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While not pleaded as a separate count, the direct infringement allegation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) is premised on a theory of vicarious liability for divided infringement, consistent with the Federal Circuit's holding in Akamai. The complaint alleges Defendant is liable for the user's actions by "conditioning participation in an activity" and for the link shortener's actions based on the "existence of an agreement" that establishes the "manner or timing" of performance (Compl. ¶14.d, ¶14.e, ¶15).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and estoppel: can the term "multi-digit jump code", which Plaintiff alleges was previously construed to mean a code "consisting of more than one number," be applied to the alphanumeric strings used by the accused URL shortening service? The Plaintiff's reliance on a seemingly adverse construction raises immediate questions about its litigation strategy.
• A key infringement question will be one of procedural equivalence: does a user's single click on a self-contained URL ("ow.ly/xyz") satisfy the claim's requirement for two distinct, sequential method steps: first "accessing" a location and then "entering" a code "into" that location?
• Finally, the case will likely turn on a question of agency and control: can the Plaintiff prove that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users and the third-party link shortening service (Hootsuite) to the degree required to attribute their conduct to Defendant and establish liability for divided infringement under Akamai?