DCT
1:18-cv-00106
Express Mobile Inc v. Wpengine Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: WPEngine, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Brent Coon & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00106, D. Del., 01/17/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s WordPress-based website hosting and building services infringe patents related to browser-based website generation tools.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods that allow users to create and deploy dynamic, interactive websites using a browser interface, a foundational concept in web development and content management systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case involving the same patents, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended denying a defendant's motion to invalidate the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the claims addressed a problem "particular to the internet." Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, post-grant proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 resulted in the cancellation of claim 1, one of the primary claims asserted in this litigation.
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 |
| 2018-01-17 | 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's background describes conventional web authoring tools of the time as cumbersome, requiring substantial computational power and lacking the ability to create truly dynamic and interactive web applications efficiently within a browser (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can design a website through a browser-based interface. This "build tool" separates the user's design choices (e.g., element placement, styles) from the execution logic. The design choices are stored in a database, and a separate "run time engine" is generated that reads this database to construct and display the final website. This architecture allows for the dynamic generation of complex pages without requiring the user to write code directly (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:5-15; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify the creation of sophisticated, interactive websites, making web development more accessible to non-programmers and enabling more dynamic functionality than was typical with static HTML of that era (’397 Patent, col. 2:32-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 2 (apparatus), and 37 (apparatus) (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): The key steps include:
- Presenting a user-selectable panel of settings through a browser on a computer that has a "virtual machine."
- Having at least one setting correspond to a command for the virtual machine.
- Generating a display that updates "substantially contemporaneously" with user selections.
- Storing the user's settings in a database.
- Generating a website by retrieving the stored information.
- Building a "run time file" that uses the stored information to generate "virtual machine commands" for displaying the web page.
- Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus): The key components include:
- An interface to present a settings menu through a browser.
- A browser to generate a display based on selected settings.
- A database for storing the settings.
- A build tool with a run-time file for generating web pages using the stored information.
- Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus): The key components include:
- An interface for building a website through a browser.
- An "internal database" for storing settings.
- A build tool to construct web pages using an "external database" and run time files.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claim 2 (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: This patent, a continuation of the '397 patent's application, also addresses the challenge of creating dynamic websites, focusing specifically on an object-oriented approach where pages are assembled from distinct components (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system where a website is composed of "objects" (e.g., buttons, images). A user associates "styles" with these objects, which can include complex attributes like "transformations and time lines." The system generates a "database with a multidimensional array" to store the definitions of these objects and their associated styles. A runtime engine then uses this structured database to assemble and render the final website in a browser (’168 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This object-based architecture provides a structured method for managing individual web page elements and their dynamic properties, an approach that mirrors concepts in modern component-based web development frameworks (’168 Patent, col. 2:58-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (system) (Compl. ¶39).
- Independent Claim 1 (System): The key elements are:
- A system with a server and a "build engine" for assembling a website from "objects."
- The server accepts user input to associate a "style" with objects.
- A style for a button or image object includes values for "transformations and time lines."
- The system produces a "database with a multidimensional array" containing the object and style data.
- A web browser with a runtime engine is configured to generate the website by extracting data from this database.
- The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" of the patent (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the "website building tools used by Defendant, such as, for example, all versions of Wordpress" (Compl. ¶19). Defendant WP Engine is a managed hosting provider specializing in the WordPress platform.
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that Defendant uses these tools to build websites for its customers (Compl. ¶20). The process involves a user logging into a browser-based dashboard, navigating to a tool like the "Customize Your Site" screen, and using a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor to modify website elements (Compl. ¶6).
- User selections for styles, fonts, and layout are allegedly stored in a database (Compl. ¶7). The system then uses this stored data in conjunction with runtime files (e.g., PHP, JavaScript) to generate the final HTML, which is rendered by the user's browser (Compl. ¶7).
- The complaint alleges Defendant is a "for-profit organization with revenues of approximately seventy-five million U.S.D. per year" (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’397 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method...on a computer having a browser and a virtual machine, said method comprising: (a) presenting, through a browser...a user selectable panel of settings... | A user logs in and a server presents a "website store-builder tool" or a "Customize Your Site" screen through the user's browser. | ¶6 | col. 65:6-14 |
| at least one of said selectable settings in said panel corresponds to commands to said virtual machine; | User selections in the WYSIWYG editor for font or style are translated into HTML and JavaScript, which are alleged to be commands for the browser's engine, the purported "virtual machine." | ¶¶6, 7 | col. 65:15-17 |
| (b) generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof... | "After the user selects options such as image/text alignment or font and paragraph styles through the WYSIWYG editor, the display immediately updates to reflect the selected option." | ¶6 | col. 65:18-21 |
| (c) storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database... | User selections for text color, layout, image filenames, and other settings are stored in a database. | ¶7 | col. 65:22-25 |
| (d) generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information stored in said database; and | The accused system builds web pages for a website by retrieving the previously stored user settings from the database. | ¶7 | col. 65:26-28 |
| (e) building one or more web pages to generate said website and a run time file, where at least one run time file utilizes information stored in said database to generate virtual machine commands... | Runtime files, identified as PHP and JavaScript files, allegedly use the stored database information to generate HTML, which the complaint defines as "virtual machine commands" for the browser engine. | ¶7 | col. 65:29-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A central issue may be whether the term "virtual machine," as described in the 1999-era patent (which emphasizes technologies like Java applets), can be construed to encompass a modern web browser's JavaScript engine and HTML/CSS rendering engine as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶6).
- Technical Question: The complaint's theory depends on establishing that runtime files (like PHP templates) perform the specific step of using database information to "generate virtual machine commands" (i.e., HTML/JavaScript). The case may turn on evidence demonstrating this specific data flow and transformation within the accused WordPress architecture.
’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... | The accused WordPress system operates on a client-server model, where the server hosts the website and the build tools. | ¶¶39, 40 | col. 64:58-60 |
| wherein a button or image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines... | The complaint makes a general allegation that styles are associated with objects, but provides only broad citations to web standards (e.g., CSS3 documentation) as evidence for the "transformations and time lines" element. | ¶¶40, 41 | col. 64:65-66 |
| 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 system "reflect the database structure and contents showing... the implementation of a multidimensional array structured database." | ¶42 | col. 65:1-4 |
| 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 accused system allegedly uses runtime files (HTML and CSS) that are generated based on the database content, which are then used by the browser to render the final website. | ¶¶41, 44 | col. 65:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A primary dispute is likely to be whether a standard relational database (e.g., MySQL, common in WordPress) that outputs structured data like JSON meets the specific claim limitation of a "database with a multidimensional array" (Compl. ¶42).
- Technical Question: The complaint's evidence for the "transformations and time lines" element appears to rely on the general capabilities of web technologies rather than specific, identified features within the accused WordPress editor. A factual question will be whether the accused system actually provides user-configurable "transformations and time lines" as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s infringement theory for the '397 patent hinges on this term being interpreted broadly to include modern browser JavaScript and rendering engines. The patent was filed in 1999, and practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning has evolved; its construction could be dispositive of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions the invention uses "HTML, JavaScript, and Cascading Style Sheets," which could support interpreting "virtual machine" as the browser environment where these technologies execute (’397 Patent, col. 5:23-26).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently refers to "JAVA," "JAVA applet," and the creation of "CAB/JAR files," technologies strongly associated with a Java Virtual Machine (JVM). This could support a narrower construction limited to a JVM or similar plug-in-based engine (’397 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:11-13).
Term 2: "database with a multidimensional array" (’168 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the accused WordPress database, which outputs JSON, meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because "multidimensional array" has a specific data structure definition, and the outcome will depend on whether the accused system's database is structurally equivalent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes storing "multi-dimensional arrays of various multimedia objects" including text, URLs, and image data, suggesting the term describes the function of storing complex, nested object properties rather than a rigidly defined data structure (’168 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures explicitly depict a "Build Engine's Multi-dimensional Array Structured Data Base" as a distinct component (358), and the claims recite it specifically. This may support an argument that the inventors intended a particular data structure, not just any database (like a relational one) that can represent complex data (’168 Patent, Fig. 3a).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement, alleging that Defendant "has and continues to directly infringe" by "using" the accused tools (Compl. ¶¶19, 39). It does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful because it "was made aware of the... patent[s] and its infringement thereof at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶27, 45). This basis supports only a claim for post-filing willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can the term "virtual machine," rooted in the 1999 context of Java applets, be construed to read on the standard JavaScript and rendering engines of modern web browsers? The answer will likely determine the viability of the infringement allegations against the ’397 patent.
- A second central question will be one of structural equivalence: Does the underlying database architecture of the accused WordPress platform, which allegedly uses a relational database and outputs JSON data, constitute the "database with a multidimensional array" required by the '168 patent? This will be a critical issue for both claim construction and the factual infringement analysis.
- A key procedural question will be the impact of post-filing events: Given that claim 1 of the '397 patent was cancelled in reexamination and IPR proceedings after the complaint was filed, the litigation will necessarily shift focus to the remaining asserted claims (e.g., claims 2 and 37), and the plaintiff's ability to prove infringement of those distinct apparatus claims.