DCT
1:17-cv-00702
Express Mobile Inc v. Brainvire Infotech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Brainvire Infotech, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Brent Coon & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00702, D. Del., 06/09/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s incorporation in the State of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of website building platforms, specifically Magento and Wordpress, to create websites for its customers directly infringes two patents related to browser-based website generation tools and run-time engines.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that allow users to create websites through a browser-based interface by selecting and styling elements, with those choices being stored in a database and used by a run-time engine to dynamically generate the final website.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents were previously challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming abstract subject matter in a separate case against KTree Computer Solutions. In that matter, a Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a report and recommendation, which became final, to deny the motion, finding the claims "appear to address a problem particular to the internet: dynamically generating websites." The complaint also alleges that Defendant received notice of the asserted patents and its alleged infringement on October 23, 2015.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-02 | Priority Date for ’397 and ’168 Patents |
| 2003-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Issued |
| 2009-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Issued |
| 2015-10-23 | Plaintiff allegedly sent pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2017-06-09 | 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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional website creation tools of the time as cumbersome and technically demanding, requiring users to have proficiency in languages like HTML and JavaScript. These tools were often not browser-based and struggled to efficiently create dynamic, rich-media websites (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a fully browser-based system that separates the design process from the final code. A user interacts with a visual "build tool" within their browser to select elements and define their properties (e.g., style, animation). These user selections are stored as data in an object database. The system then generates the website, including a customized "run time engine," which is sent to the end-user's browser. This engine reads the stored data to dynamically construct and display the interactive webpage, removing the need for the designer to write code directly (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-20; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to democratize web design by allowing non-programmers to create complex, interactive websites and to streamline the process of managing and updating dynamic content (’397 Patent, col. 1:41-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37, along with multiple dependent claims (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): Recites a method of producing websites by: presenting a selectable settings menu through a browser; storing user-selected settings in a database; and building one or more web pages and a "run time file" that uses the stored information to generate "virtual machine commands" for displaying the page(s) (’397 Patent, col. 65:40-69).
- Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus): Recites an apparatus comprising: an interface to present a settings menu through a browser; a browser to generate a display based on selected settings; a database to store those settings; and a "build tool" with "run time file(s)" to generate web pages using the stored information to create "commands to the virtual machine" (’397 Patent, col. 66:5-23).
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, this patent addresses the same challenges of simplifying the creation of dynamic, browser-based websites for users without extensive programming skills (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
- The Patented Solution: The ’168 patent focuses on a system for assembling a website from discrete "objects" (e.g., buttons, images). A server with a "build engine" accepts user input to associate a "style" with these objects, where the style can include complex attributes like "transformations and time lines." The system then generates a database containing the objects and their style data, which a "runtime engine" uses to render the website. A key aspect is the claim that each web page is "defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object" (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 64:58-65:7).
- Technical Importance: This invention provides a more granular, object-oriented approach to web design, enabling the creation and management of sophisticated animations and transformations through a high-level, browser-based interface (’168 Patent, col. 2:58-3:4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 (Compl. ¶84).
- Independent Claim 1 (System): Recites a system for assembling a website, comprising: a server with a build engine that accepts user input to associate styles (including transformations/timelines) with objects; producing a database with a multidimensional array of these objects and their associated data; and providing this database to a server such that a web browser with a runtime engine can generate the website from the extracted data. The claim requires that each web page be "defined entirely by the objects and the style" (’168 Patent, col. 64:58-65:7).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as "website building tools used by Defendant, such as, for example, all versions of Magento Enterprise Edition and all versions of Wordpress" (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges Defendant uses these platforms to build websites for its customers (Compl. ¶20). The functionality described involves users interacting with a browser-based dashboard or "store-builder tool" to create and modify web pages (Compl. ¶6, ¶9).
- This includes using a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSIWYG) editor to select and configure elements like text, images, and fonts. These selections are allegedly stored in a database (Compl. ¶6, ¶7).
- The system then generates the website using runtime files (e.g., PHP, JavaScript, CSS) that retrieve the stored settings to render the final page in an end-user's browser (Compl. ¶7). The complaint also notes the use of "Responsive Web Design" for dynamic resizing (Compl. ¶69).
- Defendant is alleged to be a for-profit entity that generates revenue from building websites with these tools (Compl. ¶20).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’397 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s theory for infringement of apparatus claim 2 centers on mapping the components of Magento and Wordpress to the elements of the claim.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an interface to present a settings menu which describes elements, said panel presented through a browser | The accused tools present a "website store-builder tool" or dashboard within a user's web browser, allowing navigation to screens like "Manage Products". | ¶6, ¶9 | col. 6:21-25 |
| where the selectable setting(s) corresponds to commands to the virtual machine | Selections made in the WYSIWYG editor (e.g., text alignment) generate HTML and JavaScript, which the complaint alleges are "virtual machine commands" for the browser's JavaScript engine. | ¶6, ¶7 | col. 66:12-14 |
| a browser to generate a display in accordance with selected setting(s) | The WYSIWYG editor in the browser updates the display "immediately" or "substantially contemporaneously" to reflect user selections for elements like font or paragraph styles. | ¶6 | col. 66:15-17 |
| a database for storing information regarding selected settings | User selections for layout, image filenames, thumbnails, and text color are stored in a database. | ¶7 | col. 66:18-19 |
| and a build tool having run time file(s) for generating web page(s) and using stored information to generate commands to the virtual machine for generating at least a portion of web page(s) | The accused platforms allegedly use runtime files (PHP template files, JavaScript files) that retrieve information from the database to generate the final HTML, which is then rendered by the browser's engine ("virtual machine"). | ¶7 | col. 66:20-23 |
’168 Patent Infringement Allegations
The infringement theory for the ’168 Patent focuses on the object-oriented and style-based nature of the accused platforms.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system for assembling a website comprising a server with a build engine | The server-based Magento and Wordpress platforms are alleged to be the claimed system with a build engine. | ¶84, ¶85 | col. 6:12-15 |
| the website comprising web pages with objects (one button or one image object) | Websites are built with elements like buttons and images, which the complaint maps to the claimed "objects," citing the Document Object Model (DOM). | ¶85, ¶86 | col. 6:12-15 |
| the server accepting user input to associate a style with objects, wherein a button or image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines | The accused platforms allegedly use CSS libraries, animations, and transitions to apply styles, transformations, and timelines to elements based on user input. | ¶95 | col. 6:16-20 |
| produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the website... | The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that JSON strings generated by the tools reflect an underlying "multidimensional array structured database" and that CSS files store object style data. | ¶87, ¶88 | col. 6:23-28 |
| provide the database to a server accessible to a web browser; wherein the database is produced such that a web browser with access to a runtime engine is configured to generate the website from the objects and style data extracted from the provided database | The server provides the necessary files (HTML, CSS) derived from the database to an end-user's browser, which uses its internal runtime engine (e.g., JavaScript engine) to render the website from the provided object and style data. | ¶85, ¶89 | col. 6:29-37 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for the '397 patent is whether a modern browser's JavaScript engine constitutes a "virtual machine" as the term was understood in the context of the 1999 patent, which heavily references Java technologies. For the '168 patent, a key question is whether a webpage generated by Magento or Wordpress is "defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object," as this absolutist language may not account for the platforms' underlying code frameworks.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case will depend on whether the functional components of the accused open-source platforms map onto the specific "build tool" and "run time engine" architecture described in the patents. Another technical question is whether the relational database structures typically used by Magento and Wordpress (e.g., MySQL) can be properly characterized as the "multidimensional array structured database" required by claims in both patents.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent, Claim 2)
- Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical. The complaint's infringement theory rests on equating a standard browser's JavaScript engine with a "virtual machine." If the term is construed more narrowly, the infringement case may be significantly weakened.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes a "Browser Based build engine" that is "written entirely in a web based full featured programming language" like HTML and its extensions, suggesting a general applicability to web technologies beyond a specific platform (’397 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification makes numerous references to "JAVA," "applets," "JAR/CAB files," and a "JAVA engine," which may suggest that the inventors contemplated a specific type of virtual machine, such as the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), rather than any script interpreter (’397 Patent, col. 2:24-34; col. 7:11-13).
The Term: "defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object" (’168 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its absolute nature ("entirely") creates a high bar for infringement. The defense will likely argue that the accused webpages are defined by more than just objects and styles, such as the core CMS application logic, the server environment, and the HTML structure itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue this language should be interpreted from the perspective of the web designer using the tool, for whom the page's content and appearance are effectively controlled "entirely" by the objects and styles they manipulate in the interface.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "entirely" suggests exclusivity. The detailed description does not appear to offer a special definition, which may lead a court to apply a strict, literal interpretation that would be difficult to meet for any complex web application.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful since at least October 23, 2015, the date on which Plaintiff allegedly sent correspondence providing notice of the ’397 and ’168 patents and Defendant's alleged infringement (Compl. ¶72-73, ¶103-104).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual machine," rooted in the patent's 1999 context of Java applets, be construed to cover the standard JavaScript engines found in all modern web browsers? The resolution of this question will be fundamental to the infringement analysis of the ’397 patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: do the multifaceted software architectures of Magento and WordPress, with their distinct core files, databases, themes, and plugins, actually align with the specific "build tool," "run time engine," and "multidimensional array" database structures recited in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- Finally, the viability of the '168 patent claim will likely depend on a question of limitation strictness: does the phrase "defined entirely by the objects and the style" impose a requirement so absolute that it cannot be met by a modern CMS, where the underlying platform code and structure inherently contribute to the final webpage's definition?