DCT

2:19-cv-05097

Express Mobile Inc v. InMotion Hosting Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05097, C.D. Cal., 06/12/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in California and has a regular and established place of business within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website building tools and hosting services, including its use of the WordPress platform, infringe four patents related to browser-based website generation and the integration of web components on mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns browser-based website creation tools, commonly known as WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editors, which allow users to design and build websites visually without needing to write code directly.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the ’397 and ’168 patents survived challenges to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in prior litigation. A Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a District Judge in the Northern District of California denied motions to dismiss, comparing the patents to those upheld in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397
1999-12-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168
2003-04-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Issued
2008-04-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
2008-04-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044
2009-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Issued
2016-10-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 Issued
2018-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 Issued
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 operating outside of a web browser, requiring significant user skill in HTML and scripting languages, and being inefficient for creating dynamic, media-rich websites (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-30). These tools were often complex and not well-suited for rapid, visually-driven web development (’397 Patent, col. 1:31-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a browser-based "build tool" that separates the design process from the final code generation (’397 Patent, Abstract). A user interacts with a visual interface (a "panel") within their browser to select and configure website elements; these user-selected settings are stored in an associated database (’397 Patent, col. 5:5-12). A separate "run time engine" then reads the stored data from the database to generate the final website, which is executed by the browser (’397 Patent, col. 5:13-19; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify website creation by allowing users to build sites visually within the familiar browser environment, abstracting away the underlying code and streamlining the process of generating and updating web pages (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Presenting a user selectable panel of settings through a browser.
    • Accepting one or more user selected settings.
    • Generating a display in accordance with the selected settings.
    • Storing information representative of the selected settings in a database.
    • Generating a website at least in part by retrieving the stored information.
    • Building one or more web pages for the website from at least a portion of the database and at least one run time file.
    • The run time file utilizes the stored information to generate virtual machine commands for displaying at least a portion of the web pages.
  • Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus):
    • An interface to present a settings menu describing elements, presented through a browser, where settings correspond to commands to a virtual machine.
    • A browser to generate a display in accordance with selected settings.
    • A database for storing information regarding selected settings.
    • A build tool having run time file(s) for generating web pages and using stored information to generate commands for the virtual machine.
  • Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus):
    • An interface for building a website through control of website elements, operable through a browser.
    • An internal database associated with the interface for storing information representative of settings.
    • A build tool to construct web pages having an external database and run time files, where the files use information from the external database to generate virtual machine commands.
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 3-4 and 8-11 (Compl. ¶21).

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 ’397 patent, the ’168 patent addresses the technical challenge of structuring and managing the data that defines a website's objects and styles in a systematic way for a browser-based creation tool (’168 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system where a server with a "build engine" assembles a website from objects (e.g., buttons, images) and associated styles (e.g., transformations, timelines) (’168 Patent, Abstract). Crucially, the system produces a database with a "multidimensional array" containing the objects and their associated style data, page location, and other defining information. A runtime engine then uses this structured database to generate the final website for a browser (’168 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
  • Technical Importance: This patent specifies a particular data structure—a multidimensional array—for organizing website element data, aiming to provide a more structured and efficient way for a runtime engine to interpret user selections and generate a complex, styled website (Compl. ¶65, ¶73).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • A system for assembling a website comprising a server with a build engine.
    • The website comprises web pages with objects (one button or one image object).
    • The server accepts user input to associate a style with objects, including transformations and time lines.
    • Each web page is defined entirely by the objects and their associated style.
    • The system produces a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the website, including data defining object style, number, and page location.
    • The database is provided to a server accessible to a web browser.
    • A runtime engine is configured to generate the website from the objects and style data extracted from the database.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’168 Patent.

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses technical problems related to generating and displaying content, such as widgets or other web components, on mobile devices (Compl. ¶87). The patented solution involves a system with an "authoring tool" and a device-dependent "Player" that separates the application logic (device-independent) from the presentation code (device-dependent), allowing for more efficient development and deployment of content across various devices (Compl. ¶87, ¶89).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WordPress platform, with its use of a server, a WYSIWYG editor, databases (e.g., MySQL), and generation of device-responsive code, embodies the claimed system for generating and displaying content from web components (Compl. ¶¶95-96).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’287 patent, also resolves technical problems in generating content for mobile devices (Compl. ¶163). The invention features a system where an authoring tool defines a User Interface (UI) object corresponding to a web component, stores information about it in a database, retrieves that information, and builds an application consisting of web page views that a "Player" can use to generate the display (Compl. ¶163, ¶170).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶169).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the WordPress platform, including its server, WYSIWYG editor, use of MySQL databases to store user settings, and ability to build applications from that data, infringes the claimed system (Compl. ¶¶171-172).

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). This includes the WordPress platform itself and the hosting services provided by InMotion Hosting that enable its use (Compl. ¶25, ¶57).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Instrumentalities are described as enabling users to create websites through a browser-based interface, often referred to as a "dashboard" or WYSIWYG editor (Compl. ¶25, ¶53). Users can select and configure website elements like text color, layout, images, and fonts. These user-selected settings are allegedly stored in a server-side database, such as MySQL (Compl. ¶26, ¶96). The system then uses runtime files, such as PHP template files and JavaScript, to retrieve the stored settings and generate the final HTML code that is rendered by a user's web browser (Compl. ¶27-28). The complaint alleges Defendant is a for-profit organization that utilizes these tools in its business (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,546,397 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
presenting, through a browser on a computer having a virtual machine and being capable of generating displays, a user selectable panel of settings The Accused Instrumentalities present a website-builder tool, or "dashboard," to a user through a browser. ¶25 col. 65:10-15
storing information representative of one or more of said user selected settings in a database User selections, such as text color, layout, image filenames, and paragraph margins, are stored in a database. ¶26 col. 65:30-32
generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information representative of one or more said user selected settings stored in said database The Accused Instrumentalities generate a website by building web pages from at least a portion of the database. ¶26 col. 65:33-36
and at least one run time file, where at least one said run time file utilizes information stored in said database to generate virtual machine commands for the display of at least a portion of said one or more web pages At run time, PHP and JavaScript files use information from the database to generate HTML, which the complaint alleges represents "virtual machine commands" that are read by the browser's engine to render the page. ¶27 col. 65:37-43

7,594,168 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for assembling a website comprising a server with a build engine The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to be a system for assembling a website. ¶73 col. 64:58-60
the website comprising web pages with objects (one button or one image object) The websites produced are comprised of web pages with objects. ¶73 col. 64:61-63
produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the web site including data defining the object style, number, and an indication of the web page that each object is part of The complaint alleges that JSON strings used by the accused tools originate from the database and reflect a multidimensional array structure, showing dimensions for pages, columns, and sections. This is supported by a visual table showing stored user settings in the WordPress database (Compl. ¶96). The table depicts how user-selected data, such as the active template ('the-fundamentals-of-graphic-design'), is stored in a database table named wp_options (Compl. ¶96). ¶75, ¶96 col. 2:10-18
wherein the database is produced such that a web browser with access to a runtime engine is configured to generate the website from the objects and style data extracted from the provided database. The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly use runtime files like HTML and CSS files, which function as a runtime engine to generate the website from the database data. ¶77 col. 65:2-6

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions:
    • A primary question for the ’397 Patent may be whether the term "virtual machine," as used in a patent from 1999, can be construed to read on modern web browser components like JavaScript engines and HTML rendering engines, as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶24, ¶27).
    • For the ’168 Patent, a central issue may be whether the structure of a relational database (like MySQL) combined with the use of JSON strings, as alleged for the accused WordPress system, meets the claim limitation of a "multidimensional array" (Compl. ¶75). The complaint provides a table showing the wp_posts table, which stores post content as a block of HTML text, raising the question of how this structure corresponds to a multidimensional array (Compl. p. 25).
  • Technical Questions:
    • What evidence does the complaint provide that the generated HTML and JavaScript (Compl. ¶27) are "commands" for the "virtual machine" in the specific sense required by the claims, versus being data interpreted by a standard browser?
    • The complaint alleges that JSON strings reflect a multidimensional array structure (Compl. ¶75). The analysis may turn on whether the actual data organization in the accused WordPress database functions as the claimed "multidimensional array" for defining each web page "entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’397 Patent:

  • The Term: "virtual machine"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint’s infringement theory relies on equating modern web browser engines (e.g., JavaScript engines) with the claimed "virtual machine." The definition of this term will likely determine whether the technology accused—standard web browsers rendering HTML/JS—falls within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit, limiting definition of "virtual machine." The claims refer to generating "virtual machine commands for the display" of web pages, which could be argued to encompass any software layer that interprets instructions to produce a visual output, such as a browser rendering engine (’397 Patent, col. 65:41-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent was filed in 1999, a time when "virtual machine" often referred to specific technologies like the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). The specification discusses Java and JAVA Applets, which may suggest the inventor contemplated a more specific type of virtual machine than a general-purpose browser engine (’397 Patent, col. 2:56-61).

For the ’168 Patent:

  • The Term: "multidimensional array"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’168 Patent hinges on the claim that the accused WordPress database is, or produces, a "multidimensional array." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused system uses a relational database (MySQL) and JSON strings, and the dispute will likely involve whether this architecture is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed array structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to storing various data types including "multimedia objects" and "string data" in a "multi-dimensional array structure," which could support a view that any database structure capable of organizing different data types by multiple indices (e.g., by page, by object, by attribute) meets the definition (’168 Patent, col. 2:10-15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description mentions storing data like text, images, and styles in "two, three and four dimensional arrays" based on high watermarks (’168 Patent, col. 21:58-22:15). This specific implementation detail could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires a formal array data structure, rather than the relational tables and object notation (JSON) alleged to be used in the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement against the Defendant for its alleged actions of "advertising and distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing instruction materials, training, and services" with the specific intent to cause infringement, or with willful blindness, after receiving notice (Compl. ¶57, ¶79). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Instrumentalities are a "material component" for practicing the patents and are "not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶58, ¶80).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The basis for willfulness is that the Defendant was made aware of the patents and their alleged infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶59-60, ¶81-82, ¶156-157, ¶226-227). For the ’397 patent, the complaint also alleges pre-suit knowledge based on notice received by InMotion (Compl. ¶57, ¶79).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual machine," as described in a 1999-era patent focused on Java, be construed to cover the standard rendering and JavaScript engines found in modern web browsers like Chrome and Firefox? The outcome of this question may be dispositive for the ’397 patent claims.
  • A key technical question will be one of structural equivalence: does the accused WordPress architecture, which allegedly uses a MySQL relational database and generates JSON strings, implement the "database with a multidimensional array" as required by the ’168 patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed data structure?
  • A third central question will be one of patent eligibility: although the patents have survived preliminary § 101 challenges in other venues, the defense may re-raise the issue of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea (e.g., organizing information and generating a display) without a sufficient inventive concept rooted in a specific technological improvement beyond conventional computing.