Express Mobile Inc v. Netlancers Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Netlancers Inc. d/b/a IndiaNIC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Seth Wiener; Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05102, C.D. Cal., 06/12/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as 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 services, which use website building tools such as Drupal, Joomla, Magento, and Wordpress, infringe four patents related to browser-based website generation and systems for integrating content on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to content management systems (CMS) that allow users to create and manage websites through graphical interfaces, a technology foundational to the modern web.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168 survived Section 101 subject matter eligibility challenges in prior litigations in the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California. Courts in those cases reportedly found the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in computer functionality, drawing comparisons to the patent-eligible claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

Case Timeline

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"

• Patent Identification: 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 construction tools as requiring significant technical expertise in HTML, scripting languages, and conventional programming, making them inaccessible to many users and computationally inefficient. (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system that separates the design process from the final website execution. A user interacts with a "build tool" in a browser to select elements and settings for a website. This information is stored as data objects in a database. A separate "run time engine" is then used by an end-user's browser to read the database and generate the final, interactive website. (’397 Patent, col. 2:1-12; Fig. 2). This architecture abstracts the underlying code from the user, allowing for visual website creation.
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to simplify and democratize website creation by allowing users to build websites through a visual, browser-based interface without needing to write code directly. (Compl. ¶ 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37. (Compl. ¶ 21).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method) include:
  • Presenting a user-selectable panel of settings through a browser.
  • Having at least one setting correspond to commands for a virtual machine.
  • Generating a display in accordance with the selected settings.
  • Storing information representing the selected settings in a database.
  • Generating a website by retrieving said information.
  • Building web pages and at least one "run time file" which uses the stored database information to generate "virtual machine commands" for displaying the web page.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶ 21).

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

• Patent Identification: 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: The patent addresses similar problems as its parent ’397 Patent, focusing on the technical challenges of creating dynamic, multimedia-rich websites without conventional programming. (’168 Patent, col. 1:18-48).
• The Patented Solution: This invention refines the browser-based tool concept by defining a system where a website is comprised of a plurality of "objects" (e.g., buttons, images) and associated "styles" (e.g., transformations, timelines for animation). A server-side "build engine" accepts user input to associate styles with objects and stores this information in a "multidimensional array" database. A "runtime engine" then accesses this database to generate the final website. (’168 Patent, col. 2:27-46; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This object-and-style-based architecture provided a structured framework for creating more complex, dynamic, and interactive web pages through a simplified, browser-based authoring tool. (Compl. ¶ 96).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 101).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a system) include:
  • A server with a build engine.
  • A website comprising web pages with a plurality of objects.
  • The build engine configured to accept user input to associate a style (including transformations and timelines) with the objects.
  • Producing a database with a "multidimensional array" containing the objects and their defined styles.
  • Providing the database to a server accessible to a web browser.
  • The browser, with access to a runtime engine, is configured to generate the website from the object and style data in the database.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶ 101).

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

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287, “Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices,” issued October 18, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for generating and displaying content on devices, particularly mobile devices. The system uses a computer memory storing a "registry" of web components (defined by symbolic names) and an authoring tool that allows a user to define a User Interface (UI) object and associate it with a web component. The system then produces a device-independent "Application" and a device-dependent "Player" that work together on the device to render the content and interact with web services. (Compl. ¶¶ 129, 136).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 135).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that platforms like WordPress, with their server-side databases, WYSIWYG editors, and use of device-independent (API/responsive code) and device-dependent (runtime player/browser rendering) components, infringe the ’287 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 137-153).

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

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044
  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044, “Systems and Methods for Programming Mobile Devices,” issued March 27, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’287 Patent and describes a similar system for generating code for device displays. The claims add further details, including the authoring tool storing information about the UI object and its settings in a database, retrieving that information, and building an "Application" consisting of web page views from that database, which is then utilized by a "Player". (Compl. ¶¶ 205, 212).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 211).
  • Accused Features: As with the ’287 Patent, the complaint accuses platforms like WordPress. The allegations focus on how WordPress uses a MySQL database to store user-selected settings (colors, text, images), which are then retrieved by a runtime environment to build the final web page views displayed in a browser. (Compl. ¶¶ 213-214).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The website building tools used and/or provided by Defendant, including Drupal, Joomla, Magento, and/or Wordpress. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 101).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused tools as browser-based platforms that enable users to create websites through a graphical interface, often referred to as a dashboard or WYSIWYG editor. (Compl. ¶ 25). Users select and configure website elements (e.g., text color, layout, image files), and these selections are stored as data in a server-side database (e.g., MySQL). (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 138). When an end-user requests a webpage, "run time" files (such as PHP template files and JavaScript) retrieve the stored data from the database to dynamically generate and render the final HTML page in the end-user's browser. (Compl. ¶¶ 26-28). The complaint alleges these platforms are of significant commercial importance. (Compl. ¶ 22). The table provided in the complaint shows an example of data stored in a WordPress database, specifically the "wp_posts" table containing HTML code for user-selected content and styling. (Compl. ¶ 138).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,546,397 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "virtual machine". The complaint alleges this term reads on a modern browser's JavaScript engine. The defense may argue the patent, which frequently references the "JAVA engine," contemplated a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) or a similar, specific technology, not the general-purpose script interpreters in modern browsers.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory maps the architecture of a modern CMS onto the patent's "build tool" and "run time file" structure. A technical question is whether the integrated server-side processing (e.g., PHP) and client-side rendering (HTML/CSS/JS) of a platform like WordPress function in the same way as the distinct "build tool" and "run time engine" components described in the patent.

7,594,168 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may be the term "multidimensional array". The complaint alleges that JSON strings used by the accused tools are evidence of this structure. The defense may argue that the underlying relational database (e.g., MySQL) is not a "multidimensional array" as described in the patent, and that the format of data output (JSON) does not define the structure of the database itself.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the databases of the accused open-source platforms are structured as a "multidimensional array" rather than as conventional relational tables? The analysis may focus on whether the architectural requirements of the claim are met by the actual implementation of the accused tools.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to infringement for the ’397 Patent. Plaintiff’s theory requires this term to encompass modern web browsers' JavaScript engines. A narrow construction limited to technologies like the Java Virtual Machine could present a significant challenge to the infringement allegations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "virtual machine" without explicitly limiting it to "Java." The summary of the invention describes the technology in broader terms of "computer technology" and communication between different programming languages. (’397 Patent, col. 2:28-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly and specifically refers to the "JAVA engine," "JAVA applet," "JAVA virtual machine," and communication between JavaScript and a "JAVA wrapped" build engine. (’397 Patent, col. 2:38-39; col. 23:13-24). This may suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood the invention to operate in the context of Java technology.

The Term: "multidimensional array" (’168 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis of the ’168 Patent. Plaintiff’s infringement theory rests on the allegation that the database structure of the accused platforms, evidenced by their use of JSON, meets this limitation. The dispute will likely center on whether a standard relational database can be considered a "multidimensional array."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. Practitioners may argue that in a general computing context, any data structure that organizes information along multiple axes or via multiple keys could be considered "multidimensional," a function that can be achieved with related tables in a relational database or nested structures in JSON.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes data being stored in specific array structures, for example, "three-dimensional arrays" and "four-dimensional arrays" for paragraph and string data, respectively. (’168 Patent, col. 21:18-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, non-relational, array-based data storage structure, as opposed to the table-based structure of the accused products' alleged MySQL databases.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides instruction materials, training, and services for the accused tools, allegedly with specific intent to cause infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 121, 196, 266).
• Contributory Infringement: Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused tools are a material component for practicing the patents, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for use in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 87, 122, 197, 267).
• Willful Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges Defendant was made aware of the patent and its infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint," and that infringement since that date has been willful. (Compl. ¶¶ 88-89, 123-124, 198-199, 268-269).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the technology of the late 1990s and early 2000s, such as "virtual machine" and "multidimensional array", be construed to cover the distinct architectures of modern, open-source content management systems and the JavaScript engines within contemporary web browsers?
• A second key issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the integrated, server-and-client-side functionality of platforms like WordPress operate in substantially the same way as the specific, component-based systems claimed in the patents, which describe distinct "build engines," "runtime engines," and "Players"?
• A third question will be evidentiary: can Plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the underlying database structure of the accused products is a "multidimensional array," as claimed in the ’168 patent, beyond pointing to the format of data outputs like JSON?