DCT

3:20-cv-08339

Express Mobile, Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:20-cv-08339, N.D. Cal., 11/25/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Amazon.com, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon Stores website builder platform infringes four patents related to browser-based website creation tools and methods for generating dynamic content across different devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") web development platforms that separate user-defined settings from the underlying code, enabling non-technical users to build and deploy websites that are generated "on the fly" for end-users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the lead '397 patent as early as November 14, 2012. For the three subsequently issued patents, knowledge is alleged as of the complaint's filing date. This distinction forms the basis for Plaintiff's willfulness allegations.

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
2012-11-14 Amazon allegedly notified of ’397 Patent
2015-06-23 ’755 Patent Issue Date
2016-10-18 ’287 Patent Issue Date
2018-03-27 ’044 Patent Issue Date
2020-11-25 Complaint Filing Date / Amazon allegedly notified of ’755, ’287, ’044 Patents

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, titled "Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine," issued on April 8, 2003 (Compl. ¶15).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional website creation as a cumbersome process that required direct programming in languages like HTML and CSS, with each webpage stored as a separate, static file. This method was inefficient, led to slow download times, and did not allow creators to view a live preview of the final webpage as it would appear on different devices (Compl. ¶17; ’397 Patent, col. 1:8-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where webpages are defined by a collection of user-selected settings stored in a database, rather than by static code files. A "run time engine" within the user's browser retrieves these settings and generates the webpage's HTML code "on the fly." This allows for a WYSIWYG editing environment where changes are reflected in real-time and enables the final page to be optimized for the specific device viewing it (Compl. ¶18; ’397 Patent, col. 2:52-64).
  • Technical Importance: This database-driven, on-the-fly generation approach represented an improvement in computer performance by enabling faster loading speeds and more efficient data storage compared to storing numerous individual code files (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • Presenting a viewable menu with a user-selectable panel of settings for website elements through a browser.
    • At least one setting corresponds to a command for a virtual machine.
    • Generating a display in accordance with user-selected settings "substantially contemporaneously" with the selection.
    • Storing information representing the user-selected settings in a database.
    • Generating a website by retrieving that information from the database.
    • Building webpages using the database information and "at least one run time file," which in turn uses the database information to generate virtual machine commands for display.

U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 - "Systems and Methods for Presenting Information on Mobile Devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755, titled "Systems and Methods for Presenting Information on Mobile Devices," issued on June 23, 2015 (Compl. ¶42).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of creating content and applications for a rapidly proliferating number of mobile devices, each with different characteristics. Programming for each individual device type was expensive and time-consuming (Compl. ¶43; ’755 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system architecture that separates device-independent code (an "Application") from device-dependent code (a "Player"). The Application defines the logic and content using a "plurality of symbolic names" that correspond to web components. The Player, specific to each device platform, interprets the Application and its symbolic names to render the content correctly. This allows a single Application to be deployed across a variety of devices, each running its own compatible Player (Compl. ¶44-45; ’755 Patent, col. 2:43-51).
  • Technical Importance: This device-independent architecture aimed to resolve a key bottleneck in mobile development by allowing creators to build an application once and deploy it across multiple platforms without tailoring the core code for each device type (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 23 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Essential elements of Claim 23 include:
    • Accepting, on a device, a first code that is device-platform-dependent.
    • Accepting a second code that is device-independent and includes a plurality of "symbolic names" associated with a web service.
    • The symbolic names are provided from a "registry" of web components and are defined as character strings that "do not contain either a persistent address or pointer to an output value accessible to the web service."
    • The registry includes both the symbolic names and the address of the web service.
    • Executing the first code on the device, which involves processing the symbolic names, transmitting instructions to the web service, and accepting a third, device-independent code in response.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287, titled "Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices," issued October 18, 2016 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for displaying content on a device using a device-dependent "Player." The method involves defining a User Interface (UI) object that corresponds to a web component (e.g., a widget) found in a registry. The system uses "symbolic names" from the registry to produce a device-independent "Application" that, when executed by the Player, interacts with a web service to present content in the defined UI object (Compl. ¶70).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 15 (independent) (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Amazon Stores infringes by using a Player (HTML, CSS, JavaScript) to display content tiles (widgets) based on a registry of symbolic names associated with those web components (Compl. ¶81-82).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044, titled "Systems and Methods for Programming Mobile Devices," issued March 27, 2018 (Compl. ¶96).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology is similar to the ’287 Patent, describing a method of displaying content using a Player and non-volatile memory storing symbolic names for web components. An authoring tool allows a user to define a UI object, associate it with a symbolic name, and store related settings in a database. The Player then uses the stored information to build and display an Application on the device (Compl. ¶98).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 15 (independent) (Compl. ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon Stores' use of computer memory to store symbolic names for web components (content tiles), its "Amazon Stores Builder" authoring tool for defining UI objects, and its browser-based code (Player) for generating the final webpages from stored settings (Compl. ¶109-111).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Amazon Stores" service, including its associated "store builder" tool (Compl. ¶12-13).
  • Functionality and Market Context: Amazon Stores is a browser-based, WYSIWYG tool that allows third-party retailers to create custom "digital storefronts" on Amazon's platform without writing code (Compl. ¶13, ¶36). Users select from menus to define the formatting and positioning of "content tiles" such as text, image, and video tiles (Compl. ¶13, ¶29). The system generates a real-time preview of the site as it is being built (Compl. ¶14, ¶30). The user-selected settings that control the website's appearance are stored in a database. When an end-user visits the storefront, these settings are retrieved from the database and used by JavaScript "run time files" in the browser to render the final webpage (Compl. ¶13, ¶17). The service is used by numerous companies, including Samsung and Microsoft, to customize their retail presence on Amazon (Compl. ¶8-10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'397 Patent 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... presented through a browser... The Amazon Stores Builder presents a menu with user-selectable settings to specify and design "content tiles" (e.g., header, text, image tiles). ¶29 col. 65:45-65
where at least one of said user-selectable settings... corresponds to commands to said virtual machine; The user-selectable settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine, and when a setting is selected, the system uses it to generate JSON code. ¶32 col. 66:11-14
(b) generating a display in accordance with one or more user-selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof; After a user selects a setting, the Amazon Stores Builder updates the store's display in a preview window in near real-time. ¶30 col. 66:15-18
(c) storing information representative of said one or more user-selected settings in a database; The Amazon Stores Builder stores the user-selected settings in a database. ¶31 col. 66:19-21
(e) building one or more webpages to generate said website from at least a portion of said database and at least one run time file... When a user loads a store, run time files are sent to the browser, which then communicate with the server to retrieve settings from the database and generate the store pages. ¶33 col. 66:28-35

'755 Patent 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; Amazon Stores accepts and executes device- and platform-dependent code from the Amazon web server, including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. ¶56 col. 38:5-7
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 associated with the web service; The system also accepts device-independent code from the web server which includes symbolic names of inputs and outputs. ¶56 col. 38:8-12
where the symbolic names are provided from a registry of one or more web components... obtainable over a network... The symbolic names are provided from a registry of web components (e.g., text tiles, image tiles, hyperlinks) related to inputs and outputs available over a network. ¶57 col. 38:13-17
where the symbolic names are character strings that do not contain either a persistent address or pointer to an output value accessible to the web service... The symbolic names are character strings that do not contain a persistent address or pointer to an output value. ¶58 col. 38:23-26
executing said first code on the device... transmitting processed instructions from the device to the web service, and accepting a third code... When the browser executes the provided code, it processes the symbolic names, transmits instructions to the web service, and accepts new, device-independent code in response. ¶59 col. 38:31-38
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’397 Patent raises the question of whether a standard web browser's JavaScript engine constitutes a "virtual machine" as that term is used in the patent. Similarly, for the ’755, ’287, and ’044 Patents, a central issue may be whether standard web identifiers like Document Object Model (DOM) element types, classes, and IDs meet the specific claim definition of "symbolic names," which includes the negative limitation that they "do not contain either a persistent address or pointer."
    • Technical Questions: For the ’755 Patent family, the complaint alleges that both the "device-dependent" and "device-independent" codes are comprised of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (Compl. ¶56, ¶86, ¶114). This raises a technical question for the court: what is the evidentiary basis for distinguishing between these two types of code in the accused Amazon Stores architecture, as required by the claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’397 Patent:

  • The Term: "virtual machine" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on mapping it to the accused product's architecture. The complaint alleges that the web browser's virtual machine (i.e., its JavaScript execution environment) executes JSON code generated by the system (Compl. ¶32-33). The viability of this theory may depend on whether the court adopts a broad, functional definition of "virtual machine" or a narrower one tied to specific technologies discussed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used in the claim without qualification (e.g., "a Java virtual machine"), which may support an interpretation covering any software environment that executes commands, such as a browser's script engine.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the ’397 Patent repeatedly references Java technology, such as "a JAVA applet," a "JAVA engine," and a "JAVA wrapper" (e.g., ’397 Patent, col. 2:58-64). This context may support an argument that the inventors contemplated a more specific technology, like a Java Virtual Machine (JVM), when using the term.

For the ’755 Patent:

  • The Term: "symbolic names" (Claim 23)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to infringement for the entire ’755 patent family. The claim requires these names to be "character strings that do not contain either a persistent address or pointer to an output value accessible to the web service." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint maps it to common web development constructs like element types, classes, and IDs (Compl. ¶111, ¶26). The dispute will likely focus on whether these standard constructs technically satisfy the claim's specific negative limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a functional definition. If Plaintiff can show that the accused DOM identifiers are merely abstract labels that do not, by themselves, contain a network address or pointer, this could support a broad construction that reads on standard web technologies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification may define "symbolic names" in a way that explicitly distinguishes them from conventional web identifiers or by describing a specific, unconventional registry structure. A defendant may argue that if the inventor intended to cover standard HTML/CSS identifiers, more explicit language would have been used, and that the term should be limited to the specific implementation disclosed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe for all four patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendant’s actions of advertising and providing instructions for its Amazon Stores tool, which allegedly encourages and instructs its customers (third-party retailers) to use the tool in a manner that directly infringes the patents. Examples cited include advertisements stating "Design your Store – no coding necessary" and highlighting the use of "drag-and-drop tiles" (Compl. ¶35-38, ¶62-64, ¶90-92, ¶119-121).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. For the ’397 patent, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge dating back to a notice provided on November 14, 2012 (Compl. ¶34, ¶39). For the ’755, ’287, and ’044 patents, willfulness is alleged to have commenced post-suit, based on the notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶65, ¶93, ¶122).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the patents' specific disclosures, such as "virtual machine" and "symbolic names," be construed broadly enough to read on the common, standardized web technologies (e.g., browser JavaScript engines, DOM identifiers) that comprise the accused Amazon Stores platform?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of architectural distinction: does the Amazon Stores system, in its actual technical operation, maintain the specific separations required by the claims—such as between user settings and a "run time file" ('397 Patent) or between "device-dependent" and "device-independent" code ('755 Patent family)—or is Plaintiff's infringement theory an attempt to map claim limitations onto a conventional web architecture that does not practice these distinctions?