Internet Media Interactive Corp v. Wegmans Food Market

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Internet Media Interactive Corp. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haller Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:18-cv-06593, W.D.N.Y., 08/16/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a registered New York corporation with its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts business in the state, and directs advertisements to residents of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of shortened URLs in its online advertising infringes a patent related to a system for accessing internet locations using jump codes.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to simplifying user access to specific World Wide Web locations in the early-internet era, a period when navigating directly to sites via complex URLs was common.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint repeatedly cites claim constructions from a January 4, 2009, proceeding in the District of Delaware involving the same patent. This suggests that the scope of key claim terms has been previously litigated, which may narrow the focus of the current dispute to the application of those terms to the accused technology.

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the early World Wide Web as a confusing environment with over 100,000 sites, where users had to enter "a confusing string of subdirectories, files or executable commands" (i.e., a URL) to access a specific location, an "error-prone, tedious and confusing" process ('835 Patent, col. 4:56-65, col. 7:13-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to simplify this process. It involves a "published compilation," such as a printed book, containing reviews of desirable websites ('835 Patent, col. 5:50-60). Each reviewed site is assigned a "unique predetermined multi-digit jump code" ('835 Patent, Claim 11). A user first navigates to a single, specialized website (e.g., "JumpCity"), enters the jump code for their desired destination, and software on the specialized site automatically converts the code into the full URL and redirects the user's browser to the destination site ('835 Patent, col. 5:35-49).
• Technical Importance: The system aimed to make the web more accessible to non-technical users by replacing the need to accurately type long URLs with the simpler task of entering a short code found in a curated directory ('835 Patent, col. 2:6-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 ('Compl. ¶13).
• Essential elements of Claim 11 include:
  • Publishing a compilation of preselected Internet locations with a unique multi-digit jump code for each location.
  • Providing a predetermined Internet location with means for capturing a jump code entered by a user.
  • A user accessing the predetermined location and entering the jump code.
  • Receiving the entered jump code.
  • Converting the jump code to a corresponding URL address.
  • Automatically accessing the desired Internet location using that URL address.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's use of its website, www.wegmans.com, and its Twitter account, "@Wegmans," to distribute advertisements that utilize shortened URLs provided by services such as Bitly (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13.a-c).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant publishes information on Twitter which includes links to other web pages (Compl. ¶13.a). These links are created using a link-shortening service (e.g., Bitly), which generates a short, unique code (e.g., "1bIL7tX") that, when clicked, automatically redirects a user to a longer, final URL (Compl. ¶13.b, c). The complaint frames this activity as a method of providing access to preselected locations on the internet for marketing and promotional purposes (Compl. ¶13.e).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

'835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Divided Infringement: A central issue is whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant is liable for the actions performed by third parties—namely, the end-user who clicks the link and the link-shortening service (Bitly) that performs the redirection. The complaint asserts a theory of vicarious liability under the Akamai framework, alleging Defendant conditions benefits on the user's performance and has an agreement (terms of service) with Bitly (Compl. ¶¶ 13.d, 13.e, 14). The viability of this multi-party infringement theory will be a primary focus.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether the accused process maps onto the claim steps. Specifically, does a user clicking a single hyperlink constitute the distinct, sequential steps of "accessing said predetermined Internet location" and then "entering said desired multi-digit jump code into said predetermined Internet location"? The patent describes a user looking up a code and separately typing it into a portal, whereas the accused method involves a single user action activating an automated process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint bases its allegations on prior claim constructions from a separate proceeding, making the application of those constructions to the facts central to this case (Compl. ¶13.a-c).

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

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges the prior construction for this term is "a unique predetermined code consisting of more than one number" (Compl. ¶13.b). The accused codes, however, are alphanumeric (e.g., "1bIL7tX") (Compl. ¶13.b). Practitioners may focus on whether an alphanumeric string "consist[s] of more than one number," or if this definition restricts the claim to purely numeric codes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly forbid letters. The term "multi-digit" could be interpreted more broadly than "numeric," and the specification discusses using the system to access a large and growing number of sites, which could be supported by a larger character set for codes ('835 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the specific example of a "four-digit jump code" and refers to a "four digit number," suggesting a numeric-only context ('835 Patent, col. 5:45, col. 5:61, col. 5:66, col. 6:8, Claim 9). This could support an argument that "digit" was intended in its common, numeric sense.

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

• Context and Importance: The complaint relies on a prior construction of a similar phrase as "a publicly accessible collection of information which corresponds to preselected Web sites..." (Compl. ¶13.a). The core question is whether Defendant's Twitter feed, an ephemeral and dynamic stream of posts, constitutes a "compilation" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions publishing the compilation "on-line" as an alternative to print, which supports application to digital media like a website or social media feed ('835 Patent, Claim 7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is a "printed publication or book" (e.g., "What's on the Web" book 110) which contains a curated list of reviewed sites ('835 Patent, col. 5:50-58, Fig. 1). This could suggest a more static, organized, and curated collection than a real-time social media feed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead traditional indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). Instead, it alleges direct infringement under a divided infringement theory, asserting that Wegmans is vicariously liable for the actions of both end-users and the link-shortening service provider (Compl. ¶¶ 13.d-g, 14). The basis for this liability is alleged to be Defendant conditioning user benefits on performing the clicking step and its agreement to terms of service with the link-shortening provider (Compl. ¶¶ 13.d, 13.e).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement or allege specific facts to support a claim of pre- or post-suit knowledge of infringement that was egregious or in bad faith.

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

This case appears to turn on two central questions for the court:

1. A dispositive legal issue will be one of divided infringement: Can the plaintiff satisfy the requirements of Akamai by proving that Wegmans directs or controls the actions of both the end-user (clicking the link) and the third-party link-shortening service (performing the redirection), such that Wegmans can be held directly liable for all steps of the claimed method?

2. A key question of claim scope application will be whether the accused technology falls within the previously construed claim terms. Specifically, can an alphanumeric string like "1bIL7tX" be considered a code "consisting of more than one number," and can the single user action of clicking a hyperlink be treated as the separate claim steps of "accessing" a portal and then "entering" a code into it?