DCT
1:17-cv-00708
Express Mobile Inc v. Webflow Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Webflow, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Brent Coon & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00708, D. Del., 06/09/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s browser-based website design and hosting platform infringes two patents related to generating websites through a visual interface that separates design elements from a runtime engine.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to browser-based, "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) website creation tools that allow users to design complex, interactive websites without writing code.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case against a different defendant (KTree Computer Solutions) in the Eastern District of Texas, where a Magistrate Judge recommended denying a motion to invalidate the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The recommendation found that the claims "appear to address a problem particular to the internet: dynamically generating websites" and were not merely "do-it-on-a-computer claims." This prior ruling may be raised by the Plaintiff to counter potential patent eligibility challenges.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-02 | Priority Date for '397 Patent and '168 Patent |
| 2003-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Issued |
| 2009-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Issued |
| 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 web design methods using HTML and scripting languages as cumbersome and limited, particularly for creating visually rich and interactive applications. It notes that this approach often requires significant programming skill and results in slow, inefficient websites. (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user designs a website within a browser using a visual "build tool." Instead of directly writing code, the user's selections (e.g., placing an image, defining an animation) are stored as data in a database. A separate "run time engine" then reads this database and dynamically generates the final website for a visitor's browser. This architecture separates the design process from the final code generation, aiming to simplify the creation of complex sites. (’397 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This object-oriented, database-driven approach was intended to empower non-programmers to create sophisticated websites and to improve the performance and maintainability of those sites. (’397 Patent, col. 2:51-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37, among numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Presenting a user-selectable settings panel through a browser to describe web page elements.
- Settings correspond to commands for a "virtual machine."
- Generating a display based on user selections.
- Storing information about the selections in a database.
- Generating a website by retrieving that information.
- Building web pages and a "run time file" which uses the stored information to generate "virtual machine commands" for display.
- Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus):
- An interface to present a settings menu through a browser.
- Selectable settings correspond to commands for a "virtual machine."
- A browser to generate a display based on the settings.
- A database for storing settings information.
- A build tool with "run time file(s)" that use stored information to generate "virtual machine commands."
- Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus):
- An interface for building a website by controlling elements, operable through a browser to present a settings menu and generate a display contemporaneously.
- At least one setting generates the display via commands to a "virtual machine."
- An "internal database" to store settings information.
- A build tool to construct web pages using an "external database" and "run time files," which in turn use the external database information to generate "virtual machine commands."
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 challenges of simplifying complex, dynamic website creation. (’168 Patent, col. 1:19-57).
- The Patented Solution: This patent further refines the system, focusing on a server-based "build engine" that associates "styles" with web page "objects" like buttons and images. These styles can include complex values defining animations, transformations, and timelines. The system produces a "multidimensional array" database containing these objects and styles, which is then used by a runtime engine to render the final website. (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-56).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a structured system for creating and managing websites with rich, state-dependent animations and interactions, a significant challenge in early web development. (’168 Patent, col. 2:57-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among several dependent claims (Compl. ¶100).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A system with a server and a build engine.
- The website has web pages with objects (e.g., button, image).
- The server accepts user input to associate a style with objects, where the style includes values defining transformations and timelines.
- Each web page is "defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object."
- The system produces a "database with a multidimensional array" comprising the website's objects and styles.
- The system provides this database to a server accessible to a web browser.
- A web browser with a runtime engine is configured to generate the website from the object and style data in the database.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Webflow Designer and CMS platform" (the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a browser-based, visual website authoring tool that allows users to create websites without coding (Compl. ¶¶6, 11). Users can add and style elements, and a WYSIWYG interface provides immediate visual feedback (Compl. ¶6). The platform allegedly stores user-selected settings and element properties, such as layout, color, and image information, in a database (Compl. ¶7). For finished sites, the platform is alleged to generate customized HTML and CSS files that are used at runtime to render the website (Compl. ¶71). The complaint alleges that the underlying data structure is a multidimensional array, as evidenced by JSON strings used by the platform (Compl. ¶29, ¶103).
- The complaint alleges Defendant is a for-profit entity and that the accused tools are central to its 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 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 Webflow Designer provides a user interface within a web browser with menus and panels for selecting and configuring website elements. | ¶23, ¶26 | col. 66:5-9 |
| where the selectable setting(s) corresponds to commands to the virtual machine | User selections (e.g., text color, alignment) are alleged to be settings that correspond to commands for the browser's JavaScript engine, which the complaint defines as the "virtual machine." | ¶21, ¶23 | col. 66:10-12 |
| a browser to generate a display in accordance with selected setting(s) | The Webflow WYSIWYG editor contemporaneously updates the display inside the browser to show the result of a user's selections. | ¶9, ¶23 | col. 66:13-15 |
| a database for storing information regarding selected settings | The Webflow platform stores user selections for layout, image filenames, text color, and other element properties in a database. | ¶7, ¶9, ¶26 | col. 66:16-17 |
| 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 Webflow platform is alleged to be a build tool that generates runtime files (HTML and CSS) for a website. These files allegedly contain or use the stored information to create commands (HTML and JavaScript) that are executed by the browser's engine to display the final web page. | ¶7, ¶9, ¶26 | col. 66:18-23 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether a modern browser's JavaScript engine constitutes a "virtual machine" as that term is used in the patent. The patent's specification contains numerous references to Java Applets and JAR files, which may support a narrower construction than the one advanced in the complaint (Compl. ¶23; ’397 Patent, col. 5:50-58).
- Technical Questions: It raises the question of whether standard HTML and CSS files generated by the accused product function as the "run time file" envisioned by the claims. The patent's description of creating a "customized and optimized run time engine" and packaging it suggests a more discrete, compiled component than standard web files (’397 Patent, Fig. 2; Abstract).
’168 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 1)
| 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 accused Webflow platform is a server-based system that functions as a build engine for creating websites. | ¶101-102 | col. 64:55-56 |
| wherein a button or image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines | The Webflow platform allegedly allows users to associate styles, including animations and transitions (alleged to be "transformations and time lines"), with objects like buttons and images. | ¶101, ¶111 | col. 64:59-63 |
| wherein each web page is defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object | The complaint alleges that Webflow pages are defined by the objects and styles stored in its database. | ¶101 | col. 64:64-66 |
| produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the web site | The complaint alleges that JSON strings used by the accused platform show a data structure with dimensions for pages, columns, and sections, meeting the "multidimensional array" limitation. | ¶103 | col. 64:67-col. 65:1 |
| 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 platform allegedly produces a database from which a browser (the "runtime engine") can extract object and style data (via generated HTML/CSS/JS) to construct and display the final website. | ¶101-102 | col. 65:5-9 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "defined entirely by" will be critical. This absolute language suggests that nothing else contributes to the web page definition, a high bar that may be a focus of non-infringement arguments.
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will be whether the data structure used by Webflow constitutes a "multidimensional array." The complaint's reliance on the structure of JSON strings (Compl. ¶103) invites a technical deep-dive into the actual implementation of Webflow's backend database.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual machine"
- Context and Importance: This term, central to the '397 Patent, is essential to the plaintiff's infringement theory, which equates the term with modern web browsers' JavaScript engines (Compl. ¶23). Its construction could determine whether the patent reads on modern web technologies or is limited to the Java-centric environment of its priority date.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The claims do not specify a particular type of virtual machine, which may support a construction that encompasses any software environment that executes commands, including a JavaScript engine.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently discusses the invention in the context of "JAVA," "JAVA Applets," "JAR file," and a "JAVA wrapper," technologies associated with the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) (’397 Patent, col. 5:50-58; col. 8:27-33; col. 9:10-15). This context may be used to argue the term was understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time to refer to a JVM-like environment, not a script interpreter.
The Term: "run time file"
- Context and Importance: This term from the '397 Patent is critical for infringement, as the complaint identifies the accused product’s HTML and CSS files as the "run time file(s)" (Compl. ¶71). Whether these standard web documents meet the claimed term is a central dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the file to be used at "run time" to generate commands. An argument could be made that any file used by the browser to render the page, including HTML and CSS, meets this functional description.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to constructing a "single run time file," and the specification describes a process of creating a "customized and optimized runtime engine" and packaging it and a database into "CAB/JAR files" for upload (’397 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 8:17-23). This suggests the "run time file" is a distinct, packaged, and potentially executable component, rather than standard source code files.
The Term: "multidimensional array structured database"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears in dependent claims of the '397 Patent and the primary independent claim of the '168 Patent. The plaintiff's allegation hinges on interpreting Webflow's use of nested JSON as meeting this requirement (Compl. ¶29, ¶103). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if modern, flexible data formats like JSON fall within the scope of a term that traditionally implies a more rigid, matrix-like structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes storing various objects and their attributes in a structured manner, which could be broadly interpreted to cover any hierarchical or nested data format capable of representing those relationships, such as JSON.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes writing data to "two dimensional array structures" and "four-dimensional array" structures, using terms like "loops" and "high water marks" that are associated with traditional array processing (’397 Patent, col. 22:25-45; col. 42:8-66). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more formal, C-style array implementation rather than a key-value object notation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides its platform along with "instruction materials, training, and services" that instruct customers on how to perform the infringing acts (Compl. ¶¶86-87, ¶¶119-120). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Webflow platform is a "material component" that is "especially made or adapted for use in an infringement" and is not a "staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶88, ¶121).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents, based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement "since at least the time Defendant received notice" of the complaint (Compl. ¶89, ¶122). The allegations are thus based on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of temporal scope and claim construction: can the term "virtual machine," rooted in the patent's Java-centric 1999 context, be construed broadly enough to encompass the JavaScript engines of modern web browsers? The resolution of this question will be pivotal for the applicability of the '397 Patent to current web technology.
- A central dispute will be one of technical implementation vs. claim language: does the accused platform's use of nested JSON for data organization meet the "multidimensional array" limitation, and are its generated HTML/CSS files the "run time file" contemplated by the patents? This will likely require significant discovery into the architecture of the Webflow platform.
- A persistent legal question will be patent eligibility: despite a favorable prior ruling, will the claims be found to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality (a specific build/run-time engine architecture) or to the abstract idea of designing a webpage, implemented using conventional computer components?