DCT

1:17-cv-00707

Express Mobile Inc v. Epages Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00707, D. Del., 06/09/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant ePages Inc.'s incorporation in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce platform and online shop building software infringe patents related to browser-based website generation tools.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for creating websites through a browser-based interface, a foundational technology for the modern e-commerce and web development industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case in the Eastern District of Texas, a magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to invalidate the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 underwent both ex parte reexamination and inter partes review, resulting in the cancellation of asserted independent claim 1. U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 underwent ex parte reexamination where all asserted claims were confirmed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-02 Priority Date for '397 and '168 Patents
2003-04-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Issues
2009-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Issues
2017-06-09 Complaint Filed
2021-07-30 Reexamination Certificate for '168 Patent Issues
2024-10-03 Reexamination Certificate for '397 Patent Issues
2025-06-24 Inter Partes Review Certificate for '397 Patent Issues

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 building tools of the time as having numerous inherent limitations, including being inefficient, not easily scalable, and often requiring significant programming knowledge, making it difficult to create sophisticated, dynamic web applications directly within a web browser (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based build tool where a user’s design choices (e.g., layout, multimedia elements) are captured and stored as objects in a dedicated database. A separate, customized "run time engine" is then generated, which reads the object data from the database at the time of viewing to construct and display the final website. This architecture separates the website’s content and structure from its presentation, aiming for more efficient and dynamic generation (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to empower non-programmers to create complex, interactive websites using a WYSIWYG ("what you see is what you get") interface entirely within a browser, a departure from more rigid, code-heavy desktop authoring tools prevalent at the time (’397 Patent, col. 2:32-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37 (Compl. ¶19, 21, 24, 75). Notably, claim 1 has since been cancelled as a result of inter partes review and ex parte reexamination. The subsisting independent claims include:
  • Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus):
    • An apparatus for producing websites on a computer with a browser and a virtual machine, comprising:
    • An interface to present a settings menu through a browser, with settings corresponding to commands for the virtual machine;
    • A browser to generate a display based on selected settings;
    • A database for storing information on selected settings; and
    • A build tool with run time files for generating web pages using the stored information to generate commands for the virtual machine.
  • Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus):
    • An apparatus for producing websites on a computer with a browser and a virtual machine, comprising:
    • An interface for building a website, operable to present a settings menu, accept settings, and generate a display contemporaneously with acceptance;
    • An internal database associated with the interface for storing setting information; and
    • A build tool to construct web pages having an external database with data corresponding to the internal database's information, and run time files that use the external database information to generate virtual machine commands.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶19).

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 the same problems of inefficiency and complexity in conventional web authoring tools (’168 Patent, col. 1:19-58).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention refines the concept, focusing on a server-side system. A server-based build engine accepts user input to associate specific "styles"—including dynamic properties like "transformations and time lines"—with website "objects" like buttons or images. These relationships are stored in a "multidimensional array" database, which is then provided to a web browser's runtime engine to generate the final, styled website (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15).
  • Technical Importance: The patent describes a more structured, server-centric architecture for creating dynamic, animated web content, moving beyond static page elements to include object-specific behaviors and timelines (’168 Patent, col. 2:27-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶94-95).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • A system for assembling a website with a server and a build engine;
    • The website has web pages with objects (e.g., a button or image);
    • The server accepts user input to associate a style with the objects;
    • The style includes values defining "transformations and time lines";
    • Each web page is defined entirely by its objects and associated styles;
    • The system produces a "multidimensional array" database comprising the objects and their style data; and
    • A web browser with a runtime engine is configured to generate the website from this database.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "ePages Online Shop Building software" and related website building tools (Compl. ¶19, 94).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused instrumentality is a browser-based, e-commerce website creation platform. The complaint alleges that users access a WYSIWYG editor and design tools through their web browser to build and customize online stores (Compl. ¶23, 35). Users can add and configure various elements, such as product pages, images, and text, and apply styling options like fonts, colors, and layouts (Compl. ¶23). The platform is alleged to use "Responsive Web Design," allowing websites to adapt their layout to different devices and screen sizes (Compl. ¶74).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendants are for-profit organizations and that the accused software is central to their business of building websites for customers (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'397 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on asserted independent claim 2)

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 software provides a "Design panel" and "WYSIWYG editor" through a browser for users to add and modify website elements. ¶23, ¶26 col. 6:13-17
where the selectable setting(s) corresponds to commands to the virtual machine User selections for font, alignment, and color are alleged to be "settings" that result in HTML and JavaScript, which the complaint defines as "virtual machine commands" for the browser's engine. ¶23, ¶26 col. 10:24-41
a browser to generate a display in accordance with selected setting(s) The WYSIWYG editor allegedly "immediately updates to reflect the selected option," generating a display based on the user's settings. ¶23, ¶26 col. 6:18-20
a database for storing information regarding selected settings The system allegedly stores user selections such as text color, layout, image filenames, and margin settings. ¶23 col. 6:3-7
a build tool having run time file(s) for generating web page(s) and using stored information to generate commands to the virtual machine The accused software is alleged to build web pages from the stored data using "run time file(s)," which are identified as an HTML file and a unique CSS file. ¶23, ¶68 col. 6:1-3

'168 Patent Infringement Allegations

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 A server of the accused system is alleged to initiate a "website builder tool" for the user. ¶95, ¶23 col. 7:20-22
the website comprising web pages with objects (one button or one image object) The complaint alleges the accused WYSIWYG editor allows users to add and place objects, including images and buttons, on a web page. ¶95, ¶35, ¶38 col. 7:1-13
the server accepting user input to associate a style with objects Users are alleged to select styles (e.g., font, color, theme) to apply to website objects. ¶95, ¶98 col. 7:1-4
wherein a button or image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines The complaint alleges the accused software uses "CSS-animations, and CSS-transitions... for adding transformations and timelines to selected elements." ¶95, ¶44, ¶105 col. 2:27-33
produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the website It is alleged that JSON strings used by the system "reflect the database structure" and show "the implementation of a multidimensional array structured database" for pages, columns, and sections. ¶97 col. 2:5-8
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 complaint alleges that the browser's engine (including its JavaScript and HTML components) acts as the runtime engine to read the generated HTML and CSS files and render the final website. ¶96, ¶23 col. 2:10-15

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '397 patent is whether the term "virtual machine," which the patent specification links heavily to Java applets, can be construed to read on a modern web browser's standard JavaScript engine as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶23). For the '168 patent, a question is whether standard "CSS-animations" and "CSS-transitions" meet the specific claim requirement of a "style that includes values defining transformations and time lines" as contemplated by the patent (Compl. ¶44).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory for claim 37 of the '397 patent relies on the existence of distinct "internal" and "external" databases. The complaint does not provide specific evidence distinguishing these two components in the accused system, raising the question of whether its architecture maps to the claim's requirements. For the '168 patent, the allegation of a "multidimensional array" database rests on assertions about the structure of unseen JSON strings (Compl. ¶97), which may require substantial evidence to prove.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's infringement theory hinges on equating modern browser JavaScript engines with the claimed "virtual machine" (Compl. ¶23). The patent's validity and infringement turn on whether this interpretation is supportable.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "virtual machine" without expressly limiting it to a specific type. The specification describes the invention as operating on a "computer having a browser and a virtual machine" (’397 Patent, col. 65:8-10), language that could be argued to encompass any software environment that executes code within a browser.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description is replete with references to technologies of its time, such as "JAVA," "applets," "JAR files," and "CAB files" (’397 Patent, col. 1:59-65; col. 5:29-33; col. 8:26-33). This context may suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood "virtual machine" to mean a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) or a similar plug-in-based environment, not the native script engines of modern browsers.

Term: "multidimensional array" (’168 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This specific data structure is a key limitation in claim 1 of the '168 patent. The infringement allegation relies on characterizing the accused product's database, allegedly expressed in JSON, as meeting this structural requirement (Compl. ¶97).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the array to comprise "the objects that comprise the web site including data defining the object style, number, and an indication of the web page that each object is part of" (’168 Patent, col. 64:66-col. 65:3). This could be interpreted functionally to cover any data structure, such as nested JSON objects, that logically organizes website data along these multiple dimensions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of fixed-dimension data structures, such as a "four-dimensional array" for storing text and a "three-dimensional array" for web page styles (’168 Patent, col. 42:1-12). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more rigid, pre-defined array structure rather than the flexible, key-value pair structure of JSON.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by "advertising and distributing the Infringing Instrumentalities and providing instruction materials, training, and services" that instruct customers on how to use the accused software in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶81, 111).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶79, 83). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.

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

  • The Impact of Claim Cancellation: A threshold issue for the '397 patent is the effect of the post-filing cancellation of independent claim 1. While asserted in the original complaint, this claim is no longer valid, focusing the dispute for that patent entirely on the remaining asserted claims and their specific limitations.
  • Definitional Scope and Technological Evolution: A central dispute will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "virtual machine," rooted in the patent's context of Java applets, be construed broadly enough to cover the standard JavaScript and rendering engines native to modern web browsers? The outcome of this question will likely determine infringement for the '397 patent.
  • Structural and Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused platform's use of industry-standard technologies like CSS for animations and JSON for data storage perform the same function in substantially the same way as the specific "style... defining transformations and time lines" and "multidimensional array" database recited in the '168 patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical architecture?