Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Conagra Brands Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Conagra Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05615, N.D. Ill., 08/21/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Conagra Brands, Inc. maintaining its principal place of business in Illinois and being registered to do business in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advertising methods, which use shortened URLs on social media to direct users to its websites, infringe a patent related to a system for accessing web locations via "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods from the early commercial internet era for simplifying web navigation by replacing long, complex URLs with short, easy-to-use codes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that key claim terms were previously construed in a January 4, 2009, ruling by the Delaware District Court in a proceeding related to the patent-in-suit, and it bases its infringement contentions on these prior constructions.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s, noting that navigating to websites required users to work with "confusing string[s]" of subdirectory and file names known as URLs, which were "extremely difficult to work with" and had to be typed exactly. (’835 Patent, col. 3:55-65). This process was contrasted with the user-friendliness of other desktop software.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to simplify web access. A user would consult a "published compilation," such as a printed book, to find a preselected website and its corresponding "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code." (’835 Patent, col. 9:2-6). The user would then navigate to a single, specialized "predetermined Internet location" (e.g., a website called "JumpCity") and enter the jump code. Software at the specialized location would receive the code, look up the full URL in a database, and automatically redirect the user to the desired destination website, obviating the need for the user to ever type the full URL. (’835 Patent, col. 5:44-56).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to make the web more accessible to non-technical users by abstracting away the complexity of URLs and providing a curated directory of useful sites, presented as an "easy to use, automatic, and efficient manner" of navigation. (’835 Patent, col. 4:19-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11. (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of independent claim 11 are:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code assigned to each location;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location (e.g., a specific website) with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user;
  • a user accessing that predetermined location and entering the jump code;
  • receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined location;
  • converting the jump code to its corresponding full URL address; and
  • automatically accessing the desired location using the converted URL address.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's advertising and marketing methods, which involve the operation of the website www.earthbalancenatural.com, the "@Earth_Balance" Twitter account, and the use of link-shortening services (e.g., "ow.ly," which is managed by Hootsuite). (Compl. ¶4, ¶14.b-c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes advertisements on Twitter that contain shortened URLs (e.g., an "ow.ly" link). (Compl. ¶14.a). When a user clicks this link, they are first directed to the link-shortening service's server, which then automatically redirects their browser to a final destination page on one of Defendant's websites. (Compl. ¶14.d, 14.g). This process is alleged to be part of Defendant's strategy to direct consumers to its promotional offerings. (Compl. ¶14.d).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Divided Infringement: The complaint alleges that the steps of claim 11 are performed by three distinct parties: Defendant (publishing), the user (accessing and entering), and a third-party link shortening service (receiving, converting, automatically accessing). (Compl. ¶14). Plaintiff asserts infringement under the doctrine of Akamai, which requires showing that one party directs or controls the others' performance of the claim steps. (Compl. ¶15). The sufficiency of the allegations regarding control over the user and the contractual relationship with the link shortener will be a central issue.
• Technical Questions: A key question is whether the modern, one-click action of a user following a shortened URL constitutes "entering" a "jump code" into a "predetermined Internet location" as contemplated by the patent, which describes a user navigating to a specific website and manually typing a code into an "on-screen HTML box or form." ('835 Patent, col. 7:3-5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a published compilation of preselected Internet locations"

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is critical for determining whether Defendant's series of individual posts on a Twitter feed can be considered the "compilation" recited in the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's own examples differ significantly from the accused activity.

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. ¶14.a). This broad definition may support an argument that a public Twitter feed qualifies.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly refers to the compilation as a single, curated, printed publication, such as a "book 110" entitled "What's on the Web," which contains reviews and codes. ('835 Patent, col. 5:51-60). This could support a narrower construction limited to a more static, unitary collection.

"entering said desired multi-digit jump code"

Context and Importance

This term is central to the technical infringement theory. The dispute will likely focus on whether a user's single click on a hyperlink, which initiates an automatic process, is equivalent to the manual "entering" of a code described in the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the user's click causes the unique code within the URL to be transmitted to the link shortener's server, which functionally constitutes "entering" the code for processing.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a two-step process where a user first "accesses the specialized JumpCity Web site 108" and then separately performs the action of "entering the four digit jump code." ('835 Patent, col. 5:61-63, 5:65-67). This suggests a more deliberate, manual data entry step than a single click.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not plead indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement) as a separate count. Instead, it frames the case as one of direct infringement under a divided infringement theory, asserting that Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the user and the link-shortening service provider. (Compl. ¶14.d, 14.e, ¶15). Liability for the user's step is based on Defendant allegedly conditioning a benefit (promotional offerings) on the user's click, while liability for the service provider's steps is based on an alleged agreement. (Compl. ¶14.d, 14.e).

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

• A primary legal issue will be one of divided infringement: can Plaintiff meet the high bar set by Akamai by proving that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both the end-users who click the links and the independent, third-party link shortening service (Hootsuite) to the extent required to attribute their actions to Defendant for a finding of direct infringement?
• A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical equivalence: does the modern, automated process of clicking a shortened URL map onto the patent's 1990s-era description of a two-step process involving manual "entering" of a "jump code" into a specific intermediary website? The outcome may depend on whether the court views the accused process as a functionally equivalent but new technology, or as the same fundamental method described in the patent.
• A key evidentiary question will concern the character of the "compilation": will the court, guided by the prior construction cited in the complaint, agree that a dynamic series of corporate tweets constitutes the "published compilation" that the patent describes as a curated book of reviewed websites?