Express Mobile Inc v. Possible Worldwide LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Possible Worldwide, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Seth Wiener; Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05110, C.D. Cal., 06/12/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in California, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website building tools and services, including platforms such as Drupal, Joomla, and Shopify, infringe four patents related to browser-based website creation tools and systems for generating content on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of web development platforms and content management systems (CMS), which enable users to create, manage, and deploy websites and mobile applications, often without extensive coding knowledge.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that two of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168, have previously survived challenges to their patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This includes a recommended denial of a motion on the pleadings in the Eastern District of Texas and denials of motions to dismiss in two cases in the Northern District of California, where the court reportedly drew a favorable comparison 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 (issued April 8, 2003)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional website building tools of the time as being complex, computationally slow, and requiring users to have significant knowledge of HTML and scripting languages. It notes that such tools had limited capabilities for creating dynamic and interactive web pages. (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system that separates the website design process from the final rendering process. A user interacts with a "build tool" inside a web browser to select and configure website elements; these choices are stored in an "object database." A separate "run time engine" is then called by the browser, which reads the object database and executes the code to generate the final, interactive website. (’397 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 2:21-43).
• Technical Importance: This architecture was intended to simplify the process of creating sophisticated, dynamic websites by abstracting the underlying code from the user and containing the design environment within the browser itself. (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37. (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) essential elements include:
  • Presenting a selectable settings panel through a browser, where settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine.
  • Generating a display based on the selected settings.
  • Storing information about the selected settings in a database.
  • Generating a website by retrieving that information.
  • Building web pages using a run time file that utilizes the stored information to generate virtual machine commands.
• Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus) essential elements include:
  • An interface to present a settings menu through a browser.
  • A browser to generate a display according to selected settings.
  • A database for storing information about the settings.
  • A build tool with a run time file that uses the stored information to generate commands for a virtual machine.
• Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus) essential elements include:
  • An interface operable through a browser for building a website by presenting a menu, accepting settings, and generating a display.
  • An internal database for storing information representative of the settings.
  • A build tool to construct web pages using an external database and one or more run time files.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-15, 17, 20, 24-25, and 35. (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 application leading to the ’397 patent, this patent addresses the same technical problems of complexity and inefficiency in conventional web development tools. (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system centered on a server-based "build engine." This engine allows a user to associate "styles," which can include transformations and timelines, with website "objects" like buttons and images. The system then produces a "multidimensional array" database that defines the objects, styles, and page structure. This database is made accessible to a web browser, which uses a "runtime engine" to generate the final website from the extracted data. (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 64:55-65:6).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention focuses on a structured, server-generated database that defines not just static elements but also dynamic behaviors like animations and transformations, aiming to enable more complex, interactive websites built through a simplified interface. (Compl. ¶92).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶97).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) essential elements include:
  • A server with a build engine for assembling a website.
  • The website having web pages with objects (e.g., a button or image).
  • The server accepts user input to associate a style (including transformations and timelines) with an object.
  • The system produces a database with a multidimensional array that defines the object's style, number, and web page location.
  • The database is provided to a server accessible to a web browser, which uses a runtime engine to generate the website from the database.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-6. (Compl. ¶97).

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 the technical problem of generating content for mobile devices. It describes a system comprising a registry of web components identified by "symbolic names," an authoring tool to define user interface (UI) objects corresponding to those components, and a process that generates a device-independent "Application" and a device-dependent "Player" to render the content on a device. (Compl. ¶¶123, 130).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1 and 15 are asserted. (Compl. ¶129).

Accused Features

The complaint specifically accuses the "Shopify Theme Editor, based on the Ruby on Rails platform." (Compl. ¶129).

U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 - Systems and methods for presenting information on mobile devices (issued June 23, 2015)

Technology Synopsis

Belonging to the same patent family as the ’287 patent, this invention describes a similar system for presenting information on mobile devices. The system uses a computer memory storing a registry of web components, an authoring tool to define UI objects and associate them with components, and generates a device-independent "Application" and a device-dependent "Player" to manage the interaction between the user's device and a web service. (Compl. ¶173).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1, 12, and 15 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶179, 197).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the "Shopify Theme Editor, based on the Ruby on Rails platform." (Compl. ¶179).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as website building tools and platforms used or provided by Defendant, including Drupal, Joomla, and Shopify. (Compl. ¶¶21, 97).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as browser-based tools that allow users to build websites through a graphical interface, often referred to as a dashboard. (Compl. ¶25). Users select elements and define their properties (e.g., color, alignment, layout), and these selections are stored in a database. (Compl. ¶¶26, 33). At runtime, various files (e.g., HTML, PHP, JavaScript) utilize the stored database information to generate the final web pages rendered in a browser. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint specifically alleges the Shopify Theme Editor functions as an authoring tool that uses a registry of web components and produces device-dependent and device-independent code to display content, as depicted in a screenshot of the Shopify "Edit HTML/CSS page". (Compl. ¶¶129-131; Compl. p. 32). Plaintiff alleges Defendant is a for-profit organization that utilizes these tools in its business. (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "virtual machine", as used in a patent with a 1999 priority date, can be construed to read on the modern browser JavaScript engines alleged by the complaint. The specification's context, which emphasizes Java technology, may be contrasted with the broader, functional role of modern JavaScript engines.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the architecture of modern, integrated CMS platforms like Drupal or Shopify maps onto the distinct "build tool" and "run time file(s)" structure recited in the claim, or if the functions are performed in a technically different manner.

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

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the meaning of "multidimensional array comprising the objects." The complaint alleges that the JSON strings used by the accused products and their underlying database structure meet this limitation, a characterization that may be contested if the accused databases are, for example, standard relational databases.
  • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused products "produce a database" in the manner claimed. A defendant may argue that its system merely modifies a pre-existing database structure rather than producing a new one comprising a multidimensional array as part of the website assembly process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’397 Patent:

• The Term: "virtual machine"
• Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical for infringement. The complaint’s theory requires it to cover modern browser-based JavaScript engines. (Compl. ¶24). Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether the patent, conceived in the era of Java applets, applies to current web technologies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly limited in the claims. The patent describes a system intended to work within web browsers, which have evolved to use JavaScript engines as their primary execution environment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description makes numerous references to "JAVA," "JAVA applet," and a "JAVA engine," suggesting the inventors may have contemplated a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) specifically. (’397 Patent, col. 2:50-65).

For the ’168 Patent:

• The Term: "database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects"
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for this element relies on mapping it to the JSON data structures and underlying databases (e.g., MySQL) of the accused products. (Compl. ¶100). The viability of this mapping will be a central point of contention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes storing website data in various array structures, including "two-dimensional array structures" for different object types, which could support a broader reading that encompasses any structured data format capable of representing multi-faceted information. (’168 Patent, FIG. 24; col. 22:20-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim requires the database itself to be a multidimensional array, not merely a relational database that can produce data formatted as a multidimensional structure (like JSON). The specific embodiments may be used to argue the term is limited to the particular array structures disclosed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant's business involves providing and using the accused tools, and offering website building services to customers, which may support a theory of induced infringement. (Compl. ¶¶4, 21-22).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four asserted patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringement occurring "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶84, 117, 167, 214). This indicates a theory of post-filing willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological translation: Can claim terms rooted in the dot-com era's technical context, such as "virtual machine" and "multidimensional array", be construed to encompass the functionalities of modern web development platforms that use JavaScript engines and relational databases?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: Does the accused products' functionality, particularly in integrated platforms like Shopify, align with the patents' claimed architecture, which often distinguishes between a "build tool," a "database" of stored settings, and a "runtime engine" that generates the final output?
• A central question for the later patents will be one of functional equivalence: Do the accused Shopify tools, which are designed for general web and e-commerce development, actually generate the distinct device-independent "Application" and device-dependent "Player" as recited in the claims directed to mobile device content generation?