Express Mobile Inc v. Sigma Infosolutions Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sigma Infosolutions Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Seth Wiener; Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01177, C.D. Cal., 06/12/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains 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, which utilize platforms like Drupal, Joomla, and Magento, infringe patents related to browser-based website generation technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for creating dynamic websites through a browser interface, where user selections are stored in a database and used by a runtime engine to render the final pages.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents have previously survived patent-eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity, finding the claims address a problem "particular to the internet." Subsequently, a judge in the Northern District of California denied motions to dismiss, comparing the patents favorably to those found eligible 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 that rely on HTML and scripting languages as being computationally slow and limited in their ability to create full-featured, dynamic, and media-rich web applications directly within a browser (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system where a user operates a "build tool" through an interface to design a website. User selections defining website elements and their properties are stored in an associated object database. A separate "run time engine" is then used to read the information from this database and dynamically generate the final website for a visitor, separating the design process from the final content delivery (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-15).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to shift complex website authoring from standalone desktop applications to a more integrated, powerful, and efficient browser-based environment, anticipating the rise of modern web applications and content management systems (Compl. ¶11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 2 (apparatus), and 37 (apparatus) (Compl. ¶21, ¶30, ¶78).
• Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus) includes:
  • an interface for presenting a settings menu through a browser, with settings corresponding to commands for a virtual machine;
  • a browser to generate a display based on selected settings;
  • a database for storing information about the selected settings; and
  • a build tool with run time files that use the stored information to generate commands for the virtual machine to create a web page.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims (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 similar problems regarding the inefficiency and limited capabilities of conventional, script-based website authoring tools (’168 Patent, col. 1:20-48).
• The Patented Solution: This patent further details a system where a website is assembled from a collection of "objects" (e.g., buttons, images). A server-side build engine allows a user to associate "styles" with these objects, where styles can define complex properties like transformations and timelines. The invention specifies that each web page is "defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object," which are stored in a multidimensional array database and used by a runtime engine to generate the site (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 64:12-32).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a more granular, object-oriented approach to web design, enabling the creation of animated and highly stylized web pages that are generated from a structured, reusable data source rather than being hard-coded (Compl. ¶92-94).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (system) (Compl. ¶99, ¶100).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) includes:
  • a server with a build engine for assembling a website;
  • web pages comprised of button or image objects;
  • the server accepts user input to associate a style with an object, where the style can include transformations and timelines;
  • each web page is "defined entirely" by the objects and their associated styles;
  • a multidimensional array database stores the objects and their defining data; and
  • a web browser with a runtime engine generates the website from the data extracted from the database.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-6 (Compl. ¶99).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are website building tools and services used or provided by Defendant, including the content management systems (CMS) Drupal, Joomla, and Magento (Compl. ¶21, ¶99).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint characterizes the Accused Instrumentalities as server-based platforms that enable users to create and manage websites through a browser-based "dashboard" or "website-builder tool" (Compl. ¶25, ¶32).
• Functionally, a user selects elements (e.g., images, text) and applies styles (e.g., color, alignment) within a WYSIWYG editor. These user-defined settings are then stored in a database (Compl. ¶25, ¶33).
• To display the website to a visitor, the systems use runtime files (e.g., PHP, JavaScript, CSS) to retrieve the stored data and generate the final HTML, which is then rendered by the visitor's browser (Compl. ¶27, ¶34, ¶104).
• The complaint alleges Defendant earns substantial revenue from building and hosting websites using these tools (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’397 Patent Infringement Allegations

’168 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the term "virtual machine" in the ’397 Patent, filed in 1999, can be properly construed to cover a modern web browser's integrated JavaScript engine, as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶24). The defense may argue for a narrower definition tied to the technology of that era, such as a full Java Virtual Machine.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory for both patents relies on the accused products using a "multidimensional array structured database." The court will have to determine whether the database systems of Drupal, Joomla, and Magento, which are typically relational databases like MySQL, meet this specific claim limitation, even if they can output data in a hierarchical format like JSON (Compl. ¶40, ¶102). Furthermore, the ’168 Patent's requirement that a page be "defined entirely by the objects and the style" raises the question of whether the accused systems rely on other elements, like underlying PHP theme templates, that fall outside this claimed definition (Compl. ¶100).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the ’397 Patent to modern web technology hinges on this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Plaintiff's infringement theory equates it with a browser's JavaScript engine (Compl. ¶24), a component whose nature has evolved significantly since the patent's 1999 priority date.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention's use of Java and JavaScript, suggesting an intent to cover environments that execute scripts, not just standalone virtual machines like the JVM (’397 Patent, col. 1:45-55).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly references the "Java Virtual Machine" and "Java applets," which could support an argument that the term was intended to mean a more complete, self-contained execution environment, not merely a script interpreter embedded within a browser (’397 Patent, col. 1:45-55, col. 65:6-14).

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

  • Context and Importance: The word "entirely" is an absolute term that creates a potentially high bar for infringement. The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether any part of the accused web page's definition comes from sources other than the claimed "objects" and "styles."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that in the context of the invention, "defined" refers to the user-facing content and visual presentation, and that underlying architectural elements like a theme's container <div>s are not part of this "definition" but rather a neutral scaffolding.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "entirely" suggests that if any aspect of the final page—its structure, layout, or behavior—is dictated by code or files not classifiable as an "object" or its "style" (such as a base PHP template file, which the complaint itself acknowledges exists (Compl. ¶28)), the limitation is not met.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides instruction manuals and training for using the accused platforms in an infringing manner, and does so with knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶84, ¶119). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused tools are a material component of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶85, ¶120).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's awareness of the patents and infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶86, ¶121). The complaint also makes a less specific allegation of pre-suit knowledge in its inducement count (Compl. ¶84, ¶119).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technological evolution: can the term "virtual machine", rooted in the 1999-era context of Java applets, be construed to cover the integrated JavaScript engines of modern web browsers? The outcome of this definitional dispute will be pivotal for the ’397 Patent.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: do the accused CMS platforms, which typically use relational databases, actually implement the "multidimensional array structured database" required by the claims, or does their data structure differ in a legally significant way?
• Finally, the litigation will likely focus on the scope of an absolute limitation: for the ’168 Patent, does the accused technology generate a web page that is "defined entirely by" objects and styles, or does the reliance of modern CMS platforms on underlying theme templates and server-side logic create a fatal gap in Plaintiff's infringement theory?