DCT

1:18-cv-01176

Express Mobile Inc v. Icrossing Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01176, D. Del., 08/04/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a company organized under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of website building tools, such as Drupal, Wordpress, and Joomla, infringes patents related to browser-based website generation systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns browser-based tools that allow users to visually design and generate websites, separating content and styling information into a database for dynamic rendering by a run-time engine.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case involving the same patents (C.A. 2:17-cv-00128, E.D. Tex.), a Magistrate Judge recommended denying a motion to invalidate the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the claims appeared to "address a problem particular to the internet."

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
2017-01-01 Prior litigation C.A. 2:17-00128 mentioned in complaint
2018-08-04 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 building tools of the late 1990s as operating on traditional programming models (HTML, JavaScript) that were "cumbersome," "slow," and had "very little computational power," making it difficult to create dynamic, feature-rich websites. (’397 Patent, col. 1:10-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "Browser Based build engine" is used to create websites directly within a web browser. This system separates the website's structure and content (stored as objects in a database) from the presentation logic (a "run time engine"). The build tool creates an object database, and the run time engine later reads this database to generate and execute the website, enabling more complex features and interactivity. (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-65; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to shift website development from offline, code-heavy applications to a more accessible and dynamic online environment, prefiguring the architecture of modern web applications and content management systems. (’397 Patent, col. 1:50-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶19).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method): Essential elements include presenting a settings menu in a browser, where settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine; storing the settings in a database; and using a "run time file" to retrieve that stored information to generate virtual machine commands for displaying the web page.
  • Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus): Essential elements include an interface to present a settings menu in a browser; a database for storing settings; and a "build tool" with "run time file(s)" that use the stored information to generate commands for a virtual machine.
  • Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus): Essential elements include a browser-operable interface for building a website; an "internal database" for storing settings; and a "build tool" that uses an "external database" and "run time files" 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: Similar to its parent patent, the ’168 patent addresses the limitations of conventional web authoring tools, focusing on the need for a more structured, object-oriented approach to creating dynamic websites. (’168 Patent, col. 1:18-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system where a server-side "build engine" assembles a website composed of web pages with "objects" (e.g., buttons, images). A user associates a "style" (defining transformations and timelines) with each object. The key concept is that the web page is "defined entirely by the objects and the style," which are stored in a multidimensional array database. This database is then used by a runtime engine to generate the final website. (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach emphasizes a strict separation of content (objects) from presentation (styles), a foundational principle of modern web standards like HTML and CSS that improves modularity and efficiency. (’168 Patent, col. 2:37-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 6 (Compl. ¶89).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System): Essential elements include a server with a build engine; web pages comprising objects; associating a style (with transformations/timelines) with objects; the web page being "defined entirely by the objects and the style"; producing a "multidimensional array" database containing object and style data; and providing this database to be used by a browser's runtime engine to generate the website.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as website building tools used or provided by the Defendant, specifically naming "Drupal, Wordpress, and/or Joomla" as examples (Compl. ¶¶19, 89).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges Defendant uses these tools to build and host websites for its customers (Compl. ¶20). Functionally, a user interacts with a browser-based interface, often called a "dashboard," to add and configure website elements (Compl. ¶23). This interface is described as a WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") editor where selections for layout, fonts, colors, and images are made (Compl. ¶23).
  • These user-selected settings are stored in a database (Compl. ¶24). The system then generates the final website using runtime files (e.g., PHP scripts, CSS files, JavaScript) that process the information stored in the database to render HTML for a web browser (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
  • The complaint alleges Defendant is a for-profit entity with substantial revenue and that use of these tools is integral to its business (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’397 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an apparatus for producing websites ... comprising an interface to present a settings menu which describes elements, said panel presented through a browser The Accused Instrumentalities provide a user interface, or dashboard, within a browser that allows users to select and configure elements for a new webpage. ¶30 col. 66:1-3
where the selectable setting(s) corresponds to commands to the virtual machine Modern browsers rely on virtual machines (e.g., JavaScript engines) to execute JavaScript and render HTML. User selections in the WYSIWYG editor are translated into HTML and JavaScript, which serve as commands for the browser's virtual machine. ¶29 col. 65:10-14
a database for storing information regarding selected settings The Accused Instrumentalities store user selections, such as text color, layout, and image file locations, in a database. The complaint references a diagram of Drupal's field API to support its allegation of a multidimensional array structured database (Compl. ¶38). ¶31 col. 66:1-3
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 CMS platforms serve as a "build tool" that uses runtime files like PHP, JavaScript, and CSS. These files retrieve the stored user settings from the database to dynamically generate the final HTML, which constitutes the "commands" for the browser's "virtual machine." ¶32 col. 66:4-12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the term "virtual machine," as described in a patent from the Java applet era, can be construed to read on the JavaScript engines of modern web browsers as alleged by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶22). The patent’s heavy emphasis on Java technology may be used to argue for a narrower scope than what is alleged.
  • Technical Questions: The patent describes an integrated "build tool" that generates a "customized run time engine" (’397 Patent, col. 7:31-35). The complaint alleges that a combination of a standard CMS (e.g., Wordpress) and a standard browser collectively meet these limitations. A potential point of contention is whether this combination of separate, general-purpose software products performs the specific, integrated functions of the claimed "build tool" in the manner disclosed in the patent.

’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 website comprising web pages with objects (one button or one image object) The Accused Instrumentalities are server-based systems (e.g., Wordpress) that function as a "build engine" to create websites composed of pages with objects like buttons and images. ¶90 col. 63:63-66
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 complaint alleges that users can define styles for objects, such as a "hover state" for a button, which includes values that define transformations and timelines as required by the claim. ¶97 col. 64:1-3
wherein each web page is defined entirely by the objects and the style associated with the object The complaint recites this limitation as part of its general infringement theory but provides limited specific factual support for how the accused products satisfy the restrictive "entirely" requirement. ¶90 col. 64:4-6
produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the website including data defining the object style, number, and an indication of the web page that each object is part of The complaint alleges that JSON strings generated by the accused systems originate from the database and reflect a multidimensional structure containing data for pages, columns, and sections, thereby meeting this limitation. ¶92 col. 64:7-12
provide the database to a server accessible to web browser; wherein the database is produced such that a web browser with access to a runtime engine is configured to generate the website... It is alleged that the accused systems store object and style data in a database (e.g., as CSS files), which is then provided to the browser. The browser, acting as the "runtime engine," is configured to use this data to generate the final website. ¶93 col. 64:13-19

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The limitation that a web page is "defined entirely by the objects and the style" is a significant hurdle. A defendant may argue that web pages in systems like Drupal and Wordpress are also defined by underlying PHP theme files, core CMS functions, and plugins, which are not "objects" or "styles" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires producing a "database with a multidimensional array" containing specific data points (style, number, page indication). The complaint points to JSON strings as evidence (Compl. ¶92). The factual dispute will be whether the data structures within the accused CMS platforms and the data they output technically constitute the specific multidimensional array structure required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"virtual machine" (’397 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 37)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental to infringement. The complaint’s theory hinges on equating modern browser JavaScript engines with the "virtual machine" of the claims (Compl. ¶22). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the patent, conceived in the Java-era, can apply to today's web technologies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined or limited to a specific technology in the claims themselves. The specification’s abstract refers generally to an apparatus "for designing and building a web page." (’397 Patent, Abstract).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and extensively references Java-specific technologies, such as "JAVA Applet," "JAR file," "CAB file," "JAVA build engine," and a "JAVA wrapper," suggesting the inventors contemplated a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) environment. (’397 Patent, col. 1:62-65; col. 5:53-56; col. 8:25-29).

"defined entirely by the objects and the style" (’168 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The word "entirely" is an absolute term that creates a high bar for infringement. A defendant will likely argue that accused web pages are not "entirely" defined by objects and styles alone, making this a likely dispositive term for the ’168 patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "defined" should be interpreted from the end-user or designer's perspective, where the visual and interactive aspects of the page are controlled by the objects and styles they manipulate, even if underlying code structures exist.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of "entirely" suggests no other defining components. The patent describes a specific, self-contained system. A defendant will point to the complex architecture of a modern CMS, arguing that core templates (e.g., a theme’s page.php file), server-side logic, and database schemas are essential defining elements of the web page that are not "objects" or "styles" in the claimed sense.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement and focuses its allegations on direct infringement by Defendant's "using" the accused tools (Compl. ¶19, ¶89).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the patents "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint," asserting a basis for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶77-78, 100-101).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the patent claims, drafted with the architecture of the late-1990s Java/applet web in mind, be construed to cover the fundamentally different architecture of modern, open-source content management systems and in-browser JavaScript engines? This raises key definitional questions over terms like "virtual machine" and "build tool."
  • A key evidentiary question for the ’168 patent will be one of limitation scope: does the phrase "defined entirely by the objects and the style" require that no other code or template files contribute to the structure of the webpage? The answer may depend on whether the court adopts a strict, structural interpretation or a more functional one.
  • A persistent question will be patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While Plaintiff cites a favorable prior ruling on the pleadings, Defendant will likely challenge the patents again, arguing they are directed to the abstract idea of organizing and presenting information using a computer, forcing the court to analyze whether the claimed "build engine" and "database" structure provide a sufficient inventive concept.