DCT

2:19-cv-05093

Express Mobile Inc v. Evolve Media LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05093, C.D. Cal., 06/12/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is incorporated in California and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s websites and the website building tools used to create them, such as Wordpress, infringe four patents related to browser-based website generation and systems for integrating content on mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems for creating and dynamically generating websites and mobile content, a foundational component of the modern digital publishing and content management industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights that the ’397 and ’168 patents survived challenges to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in prior, separate litigations. Specifically, the complaint notes that motions to dismiss were denied in cases in the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California, with one court drawing a favorable comparison to the patent-eligible invention in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. This history suggests a potential focus on patent eligibility in the present case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-02 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168
2003-04-08 U.S. Patent No. 6546397 Issues
2008-04-07 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,471,287 and 9,928,044
2009-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 7594168 Issues
2016-10-18 U.S. Patent No. 9471287 Issues
2018-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 9928044 Issues
2019-06-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 - "Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine," issued April 8, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional website building tools as requiring significant technical expertise in HTML and scripting languages, making them inaccessible to many users and inefficient for creating dynamic, interactive websites (’397 Patent, col. 1:16-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user designs a website visually within a web browser using a "build tool." This tool captures the user's design choices—such as element placement, styles, and interactivity—and stores them as structured data in an "object database." The build tool also generates a separate, customized "run time engine." The database and the run time engine are uploaded to a web server. When a visitor accesses the website, their browser executes the run time engine, which in turn reads the object database to dynamically construct and display the web pages (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-15; Fig. 2). This architecture separates the website's design data from the logic that renders it.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify the creation of database-driven websites, enabling users without programming skills to build and deploy dynamic web content through a browser-based interface (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 37, along with dependent claims 2-4, 8-11 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Independent Claim 1 (a method) includes these essential elements:
    • Presenting a settings menu through a browser, where settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine.
    • Generating a display based on user-selected settings.
    • Storing information representing these settings in a database.
    • Generating a website by retrieving that stored information.
    • Building one or more web pages and at least one "run time file."
    • The run time file uses the stored database information to generate "virtual machine commands" for displaying the web pages.
  • Independent Claim 37 (an apparatus) includes these essential elements:
    • An interface for building a website, operable through a browser, to present and accept settings.
    • At least one setting is operable to generate the display via commands to a virtual machine.
    • An "internal database" for storing setting information.
    • A "build tool" to construct web pages using an "external database" and one or more "run time files."
    • The run time files use information from the external database to generate virtual machine commands for display.

U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 - "Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine," issued September 22, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’397 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of simplifying the creation of sophisticated, dynamic websites (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-45).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on a system where a website is defined as a collection of "objects" (e.g., buttons, images) and associated "styles" (e.g., transformations, animations, timelines). A server-based "build engine" allows a user to associate styles with objects. The system then produces a "multidimensional array" database that defines each web page "entirely by the plurality of objects and the style associated with each object." A runtime engine then accesses this database to generate the website for a user's browser (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: This object-and-style-based architecture provided a structured way to define and generate complex, interactive web pages from a database, further abstracting the design process from the underlying code (Compl. ¶64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Independent Claim 1 (a system) includes these essential elements:
    • A server with a build engine for assembling a website.
    • The website has web pages with objects (e.g., a button or image).
    • The build engine accepts user input to associate a style (including transformations and timelines) with an object.
    • Each web page is "defined entirely by the plurality of objects and the style associated with each object."
    • The system produces a "database with a multidimensional array" containing the objects and their styles.
    • The database is provided to a server so that a browser with a "runtime engine" can generate the website from it.

U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 - "Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices," issued October 18, 2016

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a system for generating content for mobile devices by using a registry of "web components" (e.g., widgets) and an authoring tool. The system produces a device-independent "Application" (the content logic) and a device-dependent "Player" (the rendering engine), separating the core application from the device-specific implementation to overcome device fragmentation (Compl. ¶81).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1-5, 11, 12, 15-19, 25, and 26 are asserted, including independent claims 1 (a system) and 15 (a method) (Compl. ¶87).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the Wordpress platform of infringing by providing an authoring tool (WYSIWYG editor), a registry of web components (stored in a MySQL database), and a system that generates a device-independent "Application" (the content) and a device-dependent "Player" (the browser and its runtime files) (Compl. ¶¶87-89).

U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 - "Systems and Methods for Programming Mobile Devices," issued March 27, 2018

Technology Synopsis

Similar to the ’287 patent, this invention covers a system for programming mobile devices. It features an authoring tool that defines UI objects corresponding to web components, stores related settings in a database, and builds a device-independent "Application" from one or more web page views using at least one device-dependent "Player" (Compl. ¶154, ¶161).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1-5, 11, 12, 15-19, 25, and 26 are asserted, including independent claims 1 (a system) and 15 (a method) (Compl. ¶160).

Accused Features

The infringement theory mirrors that for the ’287 patent, alleging that the Wordpress platform functions as the claimed system by providing an authoring tool, database, and a method of building applications from web page views for display on a device (Compl. ¶162).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as "website building tools used and/or provided by Defendant, such as, for example Wordpress" (Compl. ¶21, ¶24). The infringement allegations are also directed at numerous websites Defendant allegedly creates, operates, and maintains using these tools, including www.superherohype.com and www.gamerevolution.com (Compl. ¶21, ¶69).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities function as browser-based website creation tools where a user interacts with a server-side dashboard or WYSIWYG editor to build web pages (Compl. ¶25). User-selected settings for elements like text color, layout, and images are allegedly stored in a database (Compl. ¶26). At runtime, server-side code (e.g., "PHP code") and other files retrieve this stored information to generate HTML, which is then rendered by the end-user's browser (Compl. ¶27, ¶28). The complaint provides a table from a MySQL database, allegedly from a Wordpress installation, showing stored options like "siteurl" and "blogname" (Compl. ¶90). This table demonstrates the storage of website settings in a database as alleged by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶90).
  • The complaint alleges Defendant is a for-profit entity with approximately $89 million in annual revenue that uses the Accused Instrumentalities to build and host websites for its customers, thereby generating profit (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 - Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
presenting a viewable menu of a user selectable panel of settings... said panel of settings being presented through a browser... The Wordpress "dashboard" or "website-builder tool" is presented to a user through a browser after logging in. ¶25 col. 66:5-9
one of said selectable settings in said panel corresponds to commands to a virtual machine... User selections result in generated HTML and JavaScript, which are alleged to be "commands" for the browser's engine ("virtual machine"). ¶27 col. 66:13-15
generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings... The WYSIWYG editor immediately updates the display to reflect user selections such as text alignment or paragraph styles. ¶25 col. 66:16-19
storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database... User selections for text color, layout, image filenames, and other settings are stored in a database. ¶26 col. 66:23-25
generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information stored in said database... At runtime, server-side files retrieve information stored in the database to generate the final HTML for a web page. ¶27 col. 66:26-28
building one or more web pages to generate said website and at least one run time file... The system's "PHP code," including template files, JavaScript files, and other assets, are alleged to be the "run time file(s)." ¶28 col. 66:29-31
at least one run time file utilizes information... to generate virtual machine commands for the display... The runtime files use database information to generate HTML, which is alleged to be a "virtual machine command" read by the browser's engine. ¶27 col. 66:31-36

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "virtual machine," as used in a 1999-filed patent heavily referencing Java, can be construed to read on a modern web browser's JavaScript engine as alleged (Compl. ¶24). The parties may dispute whether a JS engine is technically a "virtual machine" within the patent's meaning or if the term was intended to refer to a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) or a more traditional system VM.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Wordpress's use of PHP templates, JavaScript, and database calls constitutes the claimed "run time file" that is separate from a "database" (Compl. ¶27-28). A potential point of contention is whether this server-side scripting architecture is technically equivalent to the patent's description of creating a distinct, customized, and packaged "run time engine" that is uploaded with its database to a server (’397 Patent, Fig. 2).

U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 - Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for assembling a website comprising a server comprising a build engine... The Wordpress software platform, hosted on a server, is alleged to be the claimed system and build engine. ¶70 col. 64:47-49
the website comprising one or more web pages with objects, wherein at least one object is a button object or an image object... Wordpress websites are constructed from pages containing objects such as buttons and images. ¶70 col. 64:50-52
the build engine is configured to accept user input to associate a style with the at least one object... The Wordpress editor allows users to apply styles, such as CSS properties, to objects like images and buttons. ¶73 col. 64:53-55
the style including values defining transformations and time lines... The complaint alleges that styles applied in Wordpress include values defining transformations and time lines. ¶70 col. 64:56-59
each web page is defined entirely by the plurality of objects and the style associated with each object... The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that this is met. ¶70 col. 64:60-62
produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the web site... The complaint alleges that JSON strings generated by the accused system originate from the database and reflect a multidimensional array structure. ¶72 col. 64:63-65
provide the database to a server accessible to a web browser... The Wordpress database resides on and is accessible to the web server that delivers content to the browser. ¶70 col. 65:1-3

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The construction of "defined entirely by" will be critical. A key question is whether a Wordpress page—which is typically generated using a combination of database content, PHP theme template files, and core software functions—is "defined entirely" by objects and styles from the database, or if the external template files contribute to the definition in a way that avoids infringement.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Wordpress database is a "multidimensional array" as required by the claim? The complaint points to JSON strings as evidence (Compl. ¶72), raising the question of whether this data structure, commonly used for data interchange, satisfies the specific database structure claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement theory for the ’397 patent. The complaint alleges that a modern browser's JavaScript engine is a "virtual machine" (Compl. ¶24). The case may turn on whether this interpretation is consistent with the patent's disclosure, which was written in an era dominated by the Java Virtual Machine (JVM).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims an apparatus with a "virtual machine capable of generating displays" (’397 Patent, col. 65:68-66:1) without explicitly limiting the term to Java. This language may support an argument that any software environment that interprets code to render a visual output qualifies.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification makes numerous references to Java, Java Applets, and JAR/CAB files, which are technologies executed by a JVM (’397 Patent, col. 1:41-55, col. 8:22-24, col. 44:2-3). This context may support a narrower construction limited to a JVM or a similar compiled-code interpreter.

  • The Term: "run time file" (’397 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that a collection of server-side PHP scripts and client-side files constitutes the claimed "run time file" (Compl. ¶28). The defense may argue that the patent describes a single, compiled, and packaged executable file.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites "at least one run time file," which suggests that a plurality of files could meet the limitation (’397 Patent, col. 66:29-31). The patent’s "Run Generation and Runtime Components" diagram shows the "Runtime Engine" as comprising multiple sub-engines (’397 Patent, Fig. 4a).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process to "create customized and optimized runtime engine" and then "create the cab/jar files," implying the engine is a distinct, compiled artifact that is packaged for deployment (’397 Patent, Fig. 4b, steps 31 & 33A).

  • The Term: "defined entirely by the plurality of objects and the style associated with each object" (’168 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation’s scope is a primary hurdle for the infringement allegation against Wordpress. Practitioners may focus on this term because Wordpress pages are generated not only from database content (objects and styles) but also from PHP template files that provide structure and logic.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the invention includes a "build engine configured to create and apply styles to... a website with web pages comprised of objects" (Compl. ¶64). This could be argued to mean the essential definitional content comes from the database, even if a template provides the rendering framework.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "entirely" is an absolute modifier. The abstract states the system produces a database that "describes and when executed produces the web page," suggesting the database is the complete and sole source of the page's definition (’168 Patent, Abstract). This may support an argument that any contribution from an external template file would mean the page is not "entirely" defined by the database objects.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While not pleaded as separate counts, the complaint contains factual allegations that may support a claim for induced infringement. It alleges Defendant utilizes the accused Wordpress tools and offers "website building and/or hosting services," which could be construed as encouraging or instructing its customers to perform infringing acts (Compl. ¶22).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four asserted patents. The allegations are based exclusively on post-suit knowledge, stating that Defendant was made aware of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" and that infringement "has been willful" since that date (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57, 75-76, 147-148, p.62 ¶2).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can the term "virtual machine," rooted in the 1999 context of Java, be construed to cover modern web browser JavaScript engines? The resolution of this question will likely determine the applicability of the earliest asserted patent to current web technologies.
  • A key technical question will be one of architectural equivalence: Do the accused Wordpress instrumentalities—which use a standard server-side scripting architecture—operate in substantially the same way as the patented systems, which describe the creation and deployment of a distinct, customized "run time file" or "Player" packaged with a self-contained database?
  • A central factual dispute for the ’168 patent will be whether the accused web pages are "defined entirely by the plurality of objects and the style associated with each object" stored in a database. The outcome may depend on the extent to which Wordpress's PHP theme files are found to contribute to the structure and definition of the final web page, potentially placing the accused system outside the claim's literal scope.