Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Calvin Klein Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Calvin Klein, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05575, S.D.N.Y., 06/14/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a New York corporation that conducts business in the state, is registered with the New York Secretary of State, and directs advertisements to New York residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of link shortening services in its online advertising infringes a patent related to a system for accessing internet locations via unique "jump codes."
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for simplifying World Wide Web navigation from an era when entering long, complex URLs was a significant barrier to usability for non-technical users.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that key claim phrases were previously construed by the Delaware District Court in a proceeding related to the patent-in-suit on January 4, 2009. Plaintiff leverages these prior constructions in its 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. ¶11; ’835 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty for early internet users in accessing web sites, which required the "error-prone, tedious and confusing entry of URLs." (’835 Patent, col. 7:13-15). It notes the challenge of finding useful content among the "100,000 or more Web sites" then in existence. (’835 Patent, col. 4:1-2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user first accesses a "specialized Web site." (’835 Patent, col. 5:35-38). Instead of typing a lengthy URL for a destination site, the user consults a "published compilation," such as a printed book or an online list, to find a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" associated with that destination. (’835 Patent, col. 7:15-19). The user then enters this simple code into the specialized site, whose software looks up the corresponding full URL and automatically redirects the user. (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:3-10). The patent’s Figure 1 illustrates this concept, showing a user with a computer (100) and a printed book of codes (110) connecting to a central server (108). (’835 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This system aimed to create a user-friendly layer over the web's technical infrastructure, replacing hard-to-remember URLs with simple codes to make navigation more accessible to a mass audience. (’835 Patent, col. 4:10-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11. (Compl. ¶14).
• 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 central website) with means to capture a jump code;
  • 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 a corresponding URL address; and
  • automatically accessing the desired location using the converted URL. (’835 Patent, col. 9:1-col. 10:28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's website ("www.calvinklein.com"), its advertising on platforms such as Twitter ("@CalvinKlein"), and its use of a branded link shortening service ("ckle.in") managed by a third-party provider, identified as RhythmOne. (Compl. ¶¶4, 14.b-c).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant distributes advertisements on Twitter containing shortened URLs (e.g., "ckle.in" links) that point to promotional offerings. (Compl. ¶¶4, 14.a, 14.d). When a user clicks such a link, the link shortening service receives the unique code embedded in the URL (e.g., "vX50HO"), converts this code into a full destination URL, and automatically redirects the user's browser to that destination, for instance, a product page on Defendant's e-commerce site. (Compl. ¶14.b-g).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Does the term "published compilation" as used in the patent, which is primarily described as an organized "book" or "on-line list" of many sites, read on a series of individual and chronologically disconnected advertisements on a social media feed? (Compl. ¶14.a; ’835 Patent, col. 5:50-60). Further, does the alphanumeric string "vX50HO" meet the definition of a "multi-digit jump code," which the patent elsewhere describes as a "four digit number"? (Compl. ¶14.b; ’835 Patent, col. 8:62-63).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 11 recites a sequence where a user first "access[es] said predetermined Internet location" and then "enter[s] said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location." (’835 Patent, col. 9:14-18). A central question is whether a user clicking a single, integrated shortened URL (e.g., "ckle.in/vX50HO") performs this claimed two-step process, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the sequence of operations compared to the patent’s description of manually typing a code into a web form. (Compl. ¶14.d; ’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "publishing a compilation"
  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Defendant's scattered social media posts can be legally considered a "compilation." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's embodiment of a curated book appears distinct from the accused activity.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint cites a prior construction from another case defining a similar phrase as "a publicly accessible collection of information." (Compl. ¶14.a). Plaintiff may argue this broad definition covers a collection of social media posts over time. The patent also refers to an "on-line list," which could support a more dynamic interpretation than a static book. (’835 Patent, col. 7:18-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s primary embodiment is a "printed publication or book 110" that "contains a plurality of reviews of Web sites," suggesting a single, organized, and curated collection rather than a series of unrelated, ephemeral advertisements. (’835 Patent, col. 5:50-60).
• The Term: "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core user action. The infringement analysis hinges on whether clicking a modern URL shortener link is legally and technically equivalent to the manual, two-step access-then-enter process described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "entering" should be construed functionally to mean "providing" the code to the server, and that the specific user interface (typing vs. clicking) is an unclaimed implementation detail.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the user entering the code into a "standard on-screen HTML box or form" after having accessed the specialized site. (’835 Patent, col. 7:3-5). This language may support a narrow construction requiring a distinct, manual data entry step that is absent when a user simply clicks an integrated hyperlink.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint advances a theory of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) based on the collective actions of multiple parties, as articulated in Akamai v. Limelight. (Compl. ¶15). It alleges Defendant is vicariously liable for the user’s action of "accessing" and "entering" the code by "conditioning participation in an activity" (receiving promotions) upon the user’s performance. (Compl. ¶14.d). It further alleges liability for the actions of the link shortening provider (RhythmOne) is based on the "existence of an agreement" between RhythmOne and Defendant. (Compl. ¶14.e-f).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "published compilation," rooted in the patent’s context of a curated book or organized list, be construed to cover a diffuse collection of individual advertisements posted on a third-party social media platform over time?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does a user’s single click on a modern, integrated shortened URL satisfy the patent's two-step claim limitation requiring a user to first "access" a website and then separately "enter" a code into it?
• The case will also turn on a question of attributed liability: has the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that Defendant directs or controls the actions of both end-users and a third-party service provider to the degree required to hold Defendant liable for their combined performance of the claimed method steps under the Akamai framework?