DCT

3:21-cv-08944

Express Mobile Inc v. Google LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00804, W.D. Tex., 11/25/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Google maintaining a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas, located within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Google’s Docs, Slides, and Ads products infringe five patents related to browser-based website generation, dynamic content display, and programming methods for mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems and methods for creating and dynamically rendering web content and applications within a browser, a foundational concept for modern web development and content management systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the patents-in-suit, 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 in multiple district courts. Several judicial opinions found the claims were directed to solving a technical problem particular to the internet—dynamically generating websites from stored user settings—rather than an abstract idea.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-02 Priority Date for ’397 and ’168 Patents
2003-04-08 ’397 Patent Issued
2008-04-07 Priority Date for ’044, ’287, and ’755 Patents
2009-09-22 ’168 Patent Issued
2015-06-23 ’755 Patent Issued
2016-10-18 ’287 Patent Issued
2018-03-27 ’044 Patent Issued
2018-12-20 Google allegedly received notice of infringement for ’397, ’168, ’287, and ’755 Patents
2020-08-31 Google allegedly received notice of infringement for ’044 Patent
2020-11-25 Complaint Filed

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 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional web site building tools as inefficient and lacking true “what you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG) functionality, requiring a cumbersome process of generating static HTML files and scripts which were then uploaded to a web server (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a browser-based system where a user interacts with a "build tool" to define website elements and their settings. This information is not compiled into static pages but is stored as data in a database. A separate "run time engine" then retrieves this data from the database to generate the website for the end-user on demand (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-10). This architecture separates the website's design data from its presentation logic, enabling dynamic generation.
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provided a technical framework for dynamic website generation directly within a browser, an improvement over static page generation that was a step toward modern content management systems and web applications (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
  • The essential elements of claim 1, a method, are:
    • Presenting a viewable menu having a user selectable panel of settings to describe website elements, where the panel is presented through a browser and settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine.
    • Generating a display in accordance with user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection.
    • Storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database.
    • Generating a website at least in part by retrieving the stored information from the database.
    • Building one or more web pages for the website from the database and at least one run time file, which uses the stored information to generate virtual machine commands.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶52).

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

  • Issued: September 22, 2009 (Compl. ¶16).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The invention is directed at solving technical problems related to website creation, with a focus on improving designer productivity through an "innovative implementation for styles" (Compl. ¶17).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a server-based system with a "build engine" for creating a website composed of web pages and objects. The system is configured to accept user input to associate styles, including transformations and timelines, with objects like images or buttons. This object and style data is then stored in a "multidimensional array" within a database, which a server makes accessible to a web browser's runtime engine to generate the final website (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:29-41).
  • Technical Importance: This system provided a structured, database-driven approach for defining and applying complex styles and animations to web page objects, an improvement over more manual or less integrated methods (Compl. ¶17, ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).
  • The essential elements of claim 1, a system, are:
    • A build engine configured to accept user input to create a website with a plurality of web pages, each with a plurality of objects, and to associate a style with those objects.
    • Each web page comprises at least one button or image object.
    • The button or image object is associated with a style including values defining transformations and timelines.
    • Each web page is defined entirely by its objects and their associated styles.
    • The system is configured to produce a database with a multidimensional array containing data defining each object's style, number, and parent web page.
    • The system provides the database to a server accessible to a web browser.
    • The database enables a web browser with a runtime engine to generate the website from the stored object and style data.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶68).

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

  • Issued: March 27, 2018 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to solve problems with displaying content uniformly across different devices. It proposes using a “symbolic name” to create a flexible association with a User Interface (UI) object (e.g., a widget), storing this association in a database, and using a device-specific “player” to retrieve the information and generate the appropriate display, thereby improving data efficiency (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: The Google Ads product is accused of infringing by using a system to generate code for providing ad content on a display of a device (Compl. ¶89-91).

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

  • Issued: October 18, 2016 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention addresses efficient code generation for displaying content across different kinds of devices. It discloses a system that associates a “symbolic name” with a UI object (e.g., a widget) to produce a device-independent application, which is then provided to a device along with a device-platform-dependent player for rendering (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: The Google Ads product is accused of infringing by generating code to provide content on a display of a device (Compl. ¶112-114).

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

  • Issued: June 23, 2015 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for efficiently generating and displaying content across devices by associating a “symbolic name” with a UI object. The invention extends this concept by also communicating the input and output values associated with the UI object using symbolic names, which is alleged to provide an additional level of efficiency (Compl. ¶43-44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶133).
  • Accused Features: The Google Ads product is accused of infringing by generating code to provide content on a display of a device (Compl. ¶132-134).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies three accused instrumentalities: Google Docs Document and Presentation Extensions, the Google Slides product, and the Google Ads product (Compl. ¶53, ¶68, ¶89).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Google Docs and Google Slides are browser-based tools that allow users to create and edit documents and presentations, which are functionally equivalent to websites (Compl. ¶53-54). Users can add elements like images and apply settings such as brightness or animation through selectable menus. The complaint provides a screenshot of the Google Docs interface showing "Image options" like "Size & Rotation" and "Adjustments" available for a selected image (Compl. p. 16). Another screenshot shows animation options such as "Spin" being applied to an object in Google Slides (Compl. p. 30). These settings are allegedly stored in a Google database and retrieved by a browser's runtime engine to generate the final display (Compl. ¶58, ¶78).
  • The Google Ads product is described as a browser-based environment for creating online advertisements (Compl. ¶91). The complaint alleges this system uses "symbolic names" (e.g., "Google font name") to refer to web components like a font selection menu. This data is allegedly stored in a database and used by a player and a virtual machine to generate platform-dependent code for displaying the ad on various devices (Compl. ¶93, ¶102).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’397 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
presenting a viewable menu having a user selectable panel of settings to describe elements on a website... said panel of settings being presented through a browser... and wherein at least one of said selectable settings in said panel corresponds to commands to said virtual machine Google Docs presents viewable menus with selectable panels (e.g., for image settings), which are presented in a browser and allegedly correspond to commands for a virtual machine like Webkit. ¶55 col. 66:5-14
generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof When a user changes a setting in the panel, such as brightness, Google's system immediately updates the display to reflect the change. ¶57 col. 66:15-17
storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database When a user changes a setting (e.g., moving a brightness slider), the setting is stored by Google in a Google database and reflected in the page's HTML. ¶58 col. 66:18-20
generating a website at least in part by retrieving the information representative of the one or more user selected settings stored in said database When a document is shared via a link, Google generates the document for the new user by retrieving the saved settings from the database. ¶59, ¶60 col. 66:21-24
building one or more web pages to generate said website from at least a portion of said database and at least one run time file, where said at least one run time file utilizes information stored in the database to generate virtual machine commands for the display of at least a portion of said one or more web pages The system allegedly uses runtime JavaScript files (run time files) to generate and display the page elements based on the stored user settings. ¶61 col. 66:25-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a document created within Google Docs constitutes a "website" as contemplated by the ’397 Patent. The defense may argue that a document editor is fundamentally different from a website generation tool, while the plaintiff may argue that any content rendered in a browser using web technologies and accessible via a URL meets the claim's requirements.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that user-selected settings "corresponded to commands to a virtual machine" (Compl. ¶55). The basis for this technical assertion will be a point of contention, questioning what evidence demonstrates that a user's selection of "brightness" is translated into a direct command to the browser's virtual machine, as required by the claim.

’168 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for assembling a web site comprising: a build engine configured to... accept user input to create a web site... each web page comprising a plurality of objects, and... to associate a style with objects... Google Slides is alleged to be a system with a build engine that allows users to create presentations (web sites) with slides (web pages) containing images and text (objects) and to apply styles to them. ¶70, ¶71, ¶73 col. 64:4-10
wherein each web page comprises at least one button object or at least one image object Users can add images to their presentations, which are alleged to be image objects. ¶72, ¶74 col. 64:11-13
wherein the at least one button object or at least one image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines... A user can apply an animation style (e.g., "Spin") to an image object, which defines a transformation, and can set triggers ("On click") and speed ("slow to fast"), which define a timeline. ¶73, ¶75 col. 64:14-19
wherein each web page is defined entirely by each of the plurality of objects comprising that web page and the style associated with the object The complaint alleges Google Slides uses the HTML Document Object Model ("DOM"), where all page elements are represented as objects that define the page. ¶77 col. 64:20-22
wherein said build engine is configured to produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects... including data defining, for each object, the object style, an object number, and an indication of the web page... The system is alleged to rely on Google's Bigtable, described as a multidimensional database, and its API allegedly shows fields for object style ("transform"), number ("object ID"), and web page ("presentation ID"). ¶78, ¶80 col. 64:23-29
provide the database to a server accessible to a web browser The Google Slides API is alleged to connect to the Bigtable database, which is provided to a server accessible to a web browser because the files are displayed in a browser. ¶82 col. 65:1-3
wherein the database produced... enable a web browser with access to a runtime engine to generate the web-site from the objects and style data... Modern browsers like Google Chrome are alleged to include a runtime engine (e.g., Webkit) that interprets data from the database to render the web page. ¶83 col. 65:3-6

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: As with the ’397 patent, a key dispute may be whether a "Google Slides presentation" is a "web site." The complaint's theory relies on an expansive definition of "web site" to include browser-based documents.
  • Technical Questions: A technical point of contention will be whether Google's Bigtable database, a NoSQL key-value store, meets the claim limitation of a "multidimensional array." The analysis will depend on whether the evidence from Google's API documentation and Bigtable's general architecture is sufficient to prove the specific structure recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"website" (’397 Patent, Claim 1; ’168 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the core patents to the accused Google Docs and Slides products hinges on whether these document-centric applications can be legally construed as a "website." Practitioners may focus on this term because if a Google Doc is not a "website," a primary infringement theory for two of the five patents may fail.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "website" without extensive limitation. The patent abstracts refer to a "method and apparatus for designing and building a web page," which could be read broadly to cover any page built with web technologies and displayed in a browser (’397 Patent, Abstract; ’168 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background sections of the patents consistently refer to "web site construction tools" and the process of "uploading to a user's web site," suggesting a system for creating traditional, publicly accessible internet sites, not collaborative documents that may remain private (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-12; ’168 Patent, col. 1:19-20).

"symbolic name" (’044, ’287, and ’755 Patents)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegations against Google Ads for the three later patents rely on the accused system using a "symbolic name" to associate UI objects with web components. The construction of this term will be critical to determining if Google's implementation (e.g., using a string like "Google font name") meets the specific claim requirements, such as not being a persistent address or pointer.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents in this family define the term broadly as being required for "evoking one or more web components" and state that they "are character strings that do not contain either a persistent address or pointer to an output value" (’044 Patent, col. 38:10-14). Plaintiff may argue any non-address string used as an identifier, like the one shown in the complaint's screenshot (Compl. p. 51), meets this definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defense might argue that the term, in the context of the full specification, requires a more specific technical implementation than just a simple string identifier. The context of creating a "device-independent application" and a "device-platform-dependent player" could be used to argue for a more constrained definition tied to the specific software architecture disclosed (’287 Patent, col. 9:11-15).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges Google induces infringement of all five patents by providing its software (Docs, Slides, Ads) to end-users with the knowledge and intent that the users' normal operation of the software will practice the claimed methods and systems. Knowledge is alleged to stem from a notice letter sent on December 20, 2018 for four of the patents and a subsequent letter on August 31, 2020 for the ’044 patent (Compl. ¶62, ¶84, ¶106, ¶126, ¶144). Contributory infringement is also alleged for the ’397, ’044, ’287, and ’755 patents, asserting the accused software is a material component not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶64, ¶108, ¶128, ¶146).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all five patents based on Google's alleged continued infringement after receiving the notice letters. The complaint asserts that Google opted to "efficiently infringe" rather than take a license (Compl. ¶65, ¶86, ¶109, ¶129, ¶147).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "website," rooted in the 1999/2000s context of public-facing internet page builders, be construed to cover modern, browser-based, and often private productivity applications like Google Docs and Google Slides? The outcome of this question may be determinative for the infringement allegations concerning the two earliest patents.
  • A second central issue will be one of technical and structural correspondence: does the architecture of Google's modern, cloud-based products map onto the specific components recited in the claims? This will involve factual questions, such as whether Google's NoSQL Bigtable database functions as the claimed "multidimensional array" and whether identifiers used in Google Ads meet the specific negative limitations of a "symbolic name."
  • Finally, a recurring legal question will be patent eligibility: although plaintiff has successfully defended the ’397 and ’168 patents against § 101 motions to dismiss in prior cases, the court will have to determine whether the claims, as a whole, are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality or an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer.