Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Foot Locker Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Foot Locker, Inc. and Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-03662, E.D.N.Y., 06/24/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants being New York corporations that conduct business and have numerous retail stores within the Eastern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use of shortened URLs in social media advertising infringes a patent related to a system for accessing internet locations via simplified "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for simplifying web navigation by replacing long, complex URLs with shorter, more user-friendly codes, a precursor to modern URL shortening services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a January 4, 2009 proceeding in the District of Delaware involving the same patent, which resulted in court-ordered constructions of 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

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. (Compl. ¶12)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that in the early era of the World Wide Web, accessing websites was difficult for many users because it required typing long, "confusing string[s] of subdirectories, files or executable commands" (URLs) without error. (’835 Patent, col. 4:55-61)
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify this process. A user is provided with a "published compilation," such as a printed book or an online list, of desirable websites and their corresponding "multi-digit jump codes." (’835 Patent, col. 5:50-65). The user first navigates to a single "specialized Web site" (a portal), enters one of the simple jump codes into a form, and software on the portal site automatically converts the code into the full, complex URL and redirects the user to the desired destination. (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:4-14)
• Technical Importance: This system aimed to make the web more accessible to a non-technical mass audience by abstracting away the complexity of URLs, much like using channel numbers to find television stations. (’835 Patent, col. 2:10-14)

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11. (Compl. ¶15)
• The essential elements of independent claim 11 are:
  • publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations, including a unique predetermined multi-digit jump code for each location;
  • providing a predetermined Internet location (e.g., a portal) that has means for capturing a jump code entered by a user;
  • accessing the predetermined location and entering the jump code into it;
  • receiving the entered jump code at the predetermined location;
  • converting the received jump code to a corresponding destination URL address; and
  • automatically accessing the destination location using the converted URL address. (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-29)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendants' method of using third-party link shortening services (e.g., Sprinklr's "spr.ly") in advertisements, particularly on the "@footlocker" Twitter account. (Compl. ¶¶5, 15.c)

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants publish advertisements on Twitter which contain links to desired web pages on their own sites. (Compl. ¶15.a)
• These links are not direct URLs to footlocker.com, but are shortened links that first point to an intermediary service provider, Sprinklr. (Compl. ¶15.c, 15.e)
• When a user clicks the link, the browser is directed to the Sprinklr service, which receives the unique alphanumeric code from the link, converts it into the full destination URL for a Foot Locker webpage, and then automatically redirects the user's browser to that final destination. (Compl. ¶15.f-g)
• The complaint asserts that Defendants are vicariously liable for the actions performed by the user (clicking the link) and the third-party service provider (Sprinklr), alleging that an agreement exists between Defendants and Sprinklr. (Compl. ¶¶15.d, 15.e)
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

• '835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that an alphanumeric string like "6011BreW3" is a "multi-digit jump code." (Compl. ¶15.b). However, it also cites a prior court construction for a similar phrase as meaning "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number." (Compl. ¶15.b). A question arises as to whether a code containing letters ("BreW") can satisfy a construction that appears to require only numbers.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will be required to show that a user's single click on a hyperlink satisfies two distinct claim steps: "accessing said predetermined Internet location" and "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"? The defense may argue the patent envisions two separate user actions (navigating to a portal, then typing in a code), whereas the accused method combines these into one.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "multi-digit jump code"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental. The infringement case rests on mapping this term onto the short, alphanumeric strings used by modern URL shorteners. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint itself introduces a potentially conflicting prior construction ("consisting of more than one number") while accusing a code ("6011BreW3") that contains non-numeric characters. (Compl. ¶15.b)

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "multi-digit," and the purpose of the invention—simplifying access by replacing a long string with a short one—is arguably served by alphanumeric codes as well as numeric-only codes. (’835 Patent, col. 9:4)
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "four-digit jump code" and "four digit number" as its primary example. (’835 Patent, col. 5:61, col. 8:63-64). The prior construction cited by the Plaintiff, if adopted, could strongly support a narrower, numbers-only definition. (Compl. ¶15.b)

• The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement theory depends on construing a user's click on a hyperlink as the act of "entering" a code. The defense will likely argue that "entering" implies an active, manual input by the user, distinct from the passive act of following a pre-packaged link.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that, from a technical perspective, the click causes the code to be transmitted to and processed by the intermediary server, which is the functional equivalent of manual entry. The claim language does not specify the mechanism of entry. (’835 Patent, col. 9:14-17)
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes the means for capturing the code as an "on-screen HTML form," which suggests a text box for manual typing. (’835 Patent, col. 8:60-62). The description of the user first accessing the site and then entering the code further implies a two-step, manual process. (col. 5:65-68)

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint structures its allegations as direct infringement under a joint-infringement theory, consistent with the framework of Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶16). It alleges that the steps of the claimed method are performed by a combination of Defendants, the user, and a third-party service provider (Sprinklr). (Compl. ¶15). To establish liability, the complaint alleges that Defendants direct or control the performance of the other actors by conditioning benefits (e.g., promotional offers) on the user's click and by operating under an agreement with Sprinklr. (Compl. ¶¶15.d, 15.e)
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a prayer for enhanced damages.

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

• A central question will be one of liability for divided performance: can the plaintiff establish that Defendants direct or control the actions of both end-users and the third-party link shortening service to the degree required to attribute all steps of the claimed method to them under the Akamai joint infringement standard? The nature of the agreement between Foot Locker and Sprinklr will be critical to this analysis.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "multi-digit jump code" be construed to read on the alphanumeric strings used in modern URL shorteners, especially in light of the prior judicial construction cited in the complaint itself, which appears to limit the term to numeric characters?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional interpretation: does a user's single click on a modern hyperlink satisfy the patent's distinct steps of "accessing" a portal site and then separately "entering" a code into it, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed two-step manual process and the accused one-click automated process?