DCT
3:20-cv-08335
Express Mobile, Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Pinterest, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gross & Klein LLP; Mololamken LLP
- Case Identification: 3:20-cv-08335, N.D. Cal., 11/25/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Pinterest, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing its office at 808 Brannan Street, San Francisco.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social media website and its "Pinboard" functionality infringe four patents related to browser-based website generation and methods for presenting dynamic content on various devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns foundational methods for creating and delivering web and application content, separating content and settings from device-specific code to improve efficiency and cross-platform compatibility.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of its infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755, 9,471,287, and 9,928,044 on February 6, 2020, which forms the basis for the allegations of willful infringement for those three patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-02 | ’397 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-04-08 | ’397 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-04-07 | ’755, ’287, & ’044 Patents Priority Date |
| 2015-06-23 | ’755 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-10-18 | ’287 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-27 | ’044 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-02-06 | Plaintiff provides notice to Defendant regarding ’755, ’287, & ’044 Patents |
| 2020-11-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
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: Prior to the invention, webpages were typically created as static code files (e.g., HTML, CSS), which were cumbersome to edit, slow for users to download, and did not allow for a "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) editing experience (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a different architecture where a webpage is defined not by static code, but as a collection of user-selected settings and objects stored in a database. A browser-based "build tool" allows a user to create the site in a WYSIWYG environment, and a "run time engine" later uses the stored database information to generate the webpage’s HTML code "on the fly" within an end-user's browser (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 18; ’397 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). This separation of design settings from final code is intended to optimize performance and simplify editing (’397 Patent, col. 5:1-13).
- Technical Importance: This database-driven, on-the-fly generation approach was aimed at improving website loading speeds, making storage more efficient, and providing a more dynamic and user-friendly editing process than was common with static file-based websites (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- (a) presenting a viewable menu with a user-selectable panel of settings through a browser, where at least one setting corresponds to a command for a virtual machine;
- (b) generating a display substantially contemporaneously with the user's selection;
- (c) storing information representing the user-selected settings in a database;
- (d) generating a website by retrieving that information from the database; and
- (e) building webpages using the database information and a "run time file" that generates virtual machine commands for display.
U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 - “Systems and Methods for Presenting Information on Mobile Devices,” issued June 23, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The proliferation of different mobile device types made it expensive and time-consuming to create applications, as code often had to be written specifically for each individual device platform (Compl. ¶38; ’755 Patent, col. 1:12-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that decouples content creation from the target device by using two types of code: a device-independent "Application" and a device- and platform-dependent "Player." An authoring tool is used to create the Application, which defines the content and logic. A specific Player is installed on each device, which interprets the device-independent Application and renders it correctly for that specific device's platform (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 40; ’755 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- Technical Importance: This architecture addresses the cross-platform development challenge, enabling developers to create an application once and have it run on a variety of different mobile devices without tailoring the core application code for each one (Compl. ¶40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶48).
- Essential elements of claim 23 include:
- A method of providing information to a device from a web service;
- Accepting a first, device-platform-dependent code on the device;
- Accepting a second, device-independent code that includes a plurality of "symbolic names" for inputs and outputs;
- Executing the first code, which processes the symbolic names, transmits instructions to the web service, and accepts a third, device-independent code back from the service in response.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 - “Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices,” issued October 18, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses generating dynamic content for mobile devices using a system that includes a registry of web components, an authoring tool or Player, and a method of defining a User Interface (UI) object that corresponds to a web component. The system uses a device-independent "Application" and a device-dependent "Player" to provide input to, and display output from, a web service (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 62).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶71).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Pinterest’s system for displaying "Pinboards" infringes by using device- and platform-dependent code (the "Player," identified as HTML, CSS, JavaScript) and device-independent code (the "Application") that includes symbolic names corresponding to web components stored in a registry (Compl. ¶¶ 73-77).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 - “Systems and Methods for Programming Mobile Devices,” issued March 27, 2018
- Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’755 and ’287 patents, this invention describes a method for displaying content on a device that has a "Player" and non-volatile memory. The memory stores symbolic names required to evoke web components from a web service, and an authoring tool is used to define UI objects and build a device-independent "Application" that is executed by the Player (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 87, 97).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶96).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the same Pinterest "Pinboard" system, alleging it uses a Player (HTML/CSS/JS) and computer memory to store and use symbolic names to display content from the Pinterest web server (Compl. ¶¶ 98-102).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the Pinterest website service, specifically its functionality that allows users to create, organize, and view webpages called "Pinboards" or "boards" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Pinterest service allows users to create Pinboards, which are described as webpages comprised of images ("Pins") and links. Users can add content, create sections, and reorganize images through various menus. The complaint alleges that when a user modifies a Pinboard, the site updates in real time (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 12).
- The complaint alleges a specific technical architecture: settings that describe the content and appearance of the Pinboard are stored in a database. When a user accesses a board, these settings are retrieved from the database and used by JavaScript "run time files" to render the board in the user's browser (Compl. ¶13).
- Pinterest is identified as a "consumer-products social media and branding company" whose service is an "image-centric social media and marketing site" (Compl. ¶11).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) presenting a viewable menu having a user-selectable panel of settings describing elements on a website... where at least one of said user-selectable settings... corresponds to commands to said virtual machine | Pinterest presents menus that allow users to select settings for their Pinboards, such as which Pins to include and how they are organized. These settings allegedly correspond to commands that generate JSON code for execution by the browser's virtual machine (JavaScript engine). | ¶29, ¶33 | col. 9:55-65 |
| (b) generating a display in accordance with one or more user-selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof | When a user selects a setting (e.g., moves a Pin), Pinterest updates the Pinboard display accordingly in real time. | ¶31 | col. 13:50-55 |
| (c) storing information representative of said one or more user-selected settings in a database | Pinterest stores all user-selected settings for Pinboards in a database. | ¶32 | col. 2:25-28 |
| (d) generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information... stored in said database | When a user loads Pinterest, run time files communicate with the Pinterest web server to retrieve the user-selectable settings stored in the database. | ¶34 | col. 8:15-20 |
| (e) building one or more webpages to generate said website from... said database and at least one run time file, where said at least one run time file uses information stored in said database to generate virtual machine commands | Run time files containing HTML and JavaScript allegedly use the retrieved settings to generate virtual machine commands (in the form of JSON code) that are sent to and executed by the browser to generate the Pinboards. | ¶34 | col. 8:21-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "virtual machine", as used in a patent with a 1999 priority date, can be construed to cover a modern web browser's JavaScript engine. The defense may argue the term was understood more narrowly at the time, such as a Java Virtual Machine (JVM), which is explicitly mentioned in the patent’s specification.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether storing user preferences (e.g., the identity and position of Pins) in a database and later retrieving them to render a page constitutes a user setting that "corresponds to commands" for a virtual machine, as required by the claim. The link between a data record and a "command" may be a point of dispute.
U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| accepting, on the device, a first code over the network, where said first code is device-platform-dependent | Pinterest sends device- and platform-dependent code, including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, to the user's device (e.g., browser, laptop, smartphone). | ¶51 | col. 2:44-47 |
| accepting, on the device, a second code over the network, where said second code is device-independent and includes a plurality of symbolic names of inputs and outputs | The user's device also accepts device-independent code from the Pinterest web server, which allegedly includes symbolic names of inputs and outputs. | ¶51 | col. 2:47-50 |
| executing said first code on the device, where the symbolic names are provided from a registry... where the web service requires both an input symbolic name and one or more associated input values and returns one or more output values | The browser executes the HTML/CSS/JS. The symbolic names (for web components like images and text blocks) are allegedly provided from a registry that contains the address of the Pinterest web server, which accepts input symbolic names and values and returns outputs. | ¶51, ¶52, ¶53 | col. 38:25-33 |
| where said executing includes: processing said symbolic names... transmitting processed instructions from the device to the web service, and accepting a third code... including the output of the web component | When the browser executes the code, it processes the symbolic names, transmits instructions back to the Pinterest web service, and in response accepts new, device-independent code from that web service. | ¶54 | col. 39:6-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The distinction between "device-platform-dependent" code and "device-independent" code may be a key issue. While the complaint characterizes standard web technologies like HTML and JavaScript as device-dependent, the defense could argue they are designed to be largely platform-agnostic.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether Pinterest's system uses a "registry" of "symbolic names" as contemplated by the patent. The dispute may center on whether standard programming identifiers used in web development (e.g., JSON keys, HTML class names) meet the specific definition and function of the "symbolic names" and "registry" described in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "virtual machine" (from ’397 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement theory for the '397 patent depends on construing a web browser's JavaScript engine as the claimed "virtual machine." The defendant may argue for a narrower definition that does not cover a standard browser environment, potentially defeating the infringement claim.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's focus is on browser-based tools, suggesting that the intended execution environment is the browser itself. The specification discusses both "JavaScript" and "JAVA applet[s]," which could support an interpretation that covers any sandboxed execution environment within a browser (’397 Patent, col. 2:50-55).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "JAVA Virtual Machine" as the archetypal example, and the technology of the era often distinguished between interpreted scripts (like JavaScript) and code run on a formal virtual machine (like Java). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to environments like the JVM (’397 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
Term: "symbolic names" (from ’755 Patent, Claim 23)
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegations for the later patents hinge on mapping this term to conventional web identifiers like API keys, JSON object keys, or HTML/CSS class names. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a specific, proprietary abstraction layer distinct from standard web practice, the infringement case may be weakened.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines them as "character strings that do not contain either a persistent address or pointer to an output value," a description that could plausibly cover a variable name or an API parameter name (’755 Patent, col. 38:2-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the symbolic names to be provided from a "registry of one or more web components." This suggests a structured, centralized repository, which a defendant may argue is more than just a collection of variable names defined within application code or an API specification (’755 Patent, col. 38:25-29).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Pinterest induces infringement of the ’755, ’287, and ’044 patents. The basis for this allegation is that Pinterest actively encourages and instructs its partners, customers, and end users to use the Pinterest service in a way that directly infringes, such as by "advertising Pinterest as a way for users to organize ideas, links, and media they find online" (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 81, 106).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Pinterest’s infringement of the ’755, ’287, and ’044 patents has been willful since at least February 6, 2020. This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from Plaintiff providing notice to Pinterest of these specific patents on that date (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 82, 107). No allegation of willfulness is made regarding the ’397 patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction in context: How will terms like "virtual machine" (from the 1999-priority ’397 patent) and "symbolic names" in a "registry" (from the 2008-priority family of patents) be interpreted in light of the technologies existing at their respective priority dates, and how will those interpretations apply to Pinterest's modern web architecture?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the conventional architecture of a modern, database-driven website using standard technologies like JavaScript and JSON inherently practice the specific, multi-step methods recited in the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented systems and the accused instrumentality?
- The dispute may also focus on the distinction between patented invention and conventional design: A central question for the court will be whether the accused functionality represents an implementation of the patented technologies or is simply the result of a natural, conventional evolution of web and mobile application development that does not read on the claims.