DCT
1:18-cv-01177
Express Mobile Inc v. Liquid Web LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Liquid Web, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01177, D. Del., 08/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use and provision of website building tools, such as Drupal and Wordpress, infringes patents related to browser-based website generation technology.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to systems and methods that allow users to create complex, dynamic websites through a browser-based interface, separating the design elements from the underlying code.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case (C.A. 2:17-cv-00128, E.D. Tex.), a Magistrate Judge recommended denying a motion to invalidate the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the claims appeared to address a problem particular to the internet—dynamically generating websites from stored user settings. This recommendation reportedly became final without objection.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-02 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168 |
| 2003-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Issues |
| 2009-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Issues |
| 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 time as being computationally intensive, platform-dependent, and limited in their ability to create dynamic, rich-media websites that could easily adapt to different screen resolutions ('397 Patent, col. 1:11-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system that separates the design process from the final website execution. A user interacts with a "build tool" within their browser to select elements and styles, which are then stored as structured data in a database. A separate "run time engine" later retrieves this data to dynamically construct and display the website for a visitor, aiming to create a more efficient and platform-agnostic authoring process ('397 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-65).
- Technical Importance: This architecture sought to lower the technical barrier for website creation by moving the development environment into a standard web browser and abstracting the website's design into a reusable data format ('397 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) Essential Elements:
- Presenting a user-selectable settings panel through a browser.
- Having at least one setting correspond to a command for a "virtual machine."
- Generating a display based on user-selected settings.
- Storing information representing the selected settings in a database.
- Generating a website by retrieving that information.
- Building web pages and a "run time file" that uses the stored information to generate "virtual machine commands" for displaying the web pages.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including numerous dependent claims that add features like specific multimedia objects, dynamic resizing, and animations (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, this patent addresses the same challenges of conventional, non-browser-based website authoring tools ('168 Patent, col. 1:18-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system for assembling a website. This system features a server with a "build engine" that allows a user to create web pages composed of "objects" (e.g., buttons, images). The user associates styles (defining transformations and timelines) with these objects. The system then produces a "multidimensional array" database containing all the object and style data, which a "runtime engine" in a web browser can use to generate the website on demand ('168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12).
- Technical Importance: This patent further refines the concept of object-oriented, database-driven web design, focusing on the modular assembly of pages from discrete objects and their associated styles ('168 Patent, col. 2:59-col. 3:9).
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:
- A server with a build engine for assembling a website composed of objects (e.g., buttons, images).
- The server accepts user input to associate a style with objects, where the style includes values for transformations and timelines.
- The system produces a database with a "multidimensional array" comprising the objects and their associated style, number, and page location.
- 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 by extracting data from the provided database.
- The complaint asserts dependent claims adding limitations such as styles for multiple object states and specific data types (Compl. ¶¶95, 98).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The website building tools used and/or provided by Defendant, specifically identifying "Drupal and/or Wordpress" as examples of the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities are browser-based tools that present a user with a "dashboard" or WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) interface to build websites (Compl. ¶23). Users select and configure elements, and the corresponding design choices (e.g., layout, image files, text color) are stored in a database (Compl. ¶24).
- The system is alleged to use "run time files," such as PHP and JavaScript files, to retrieve the stored data and generate the final HTML for display in a visitor's browser (Compl. ¶¶24-26). The functionality is also described as enabling "Responsive Web Design" to dynamically resize pages for different screens (Compl. ¶71).
- The complaint alleges Defendant is a for-profit organization that uses these tools to build and host websites for its customers, and that offering these tools serves as an inducement to attract customers for additional services (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'6,546,397 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| presenting, through a browser, a user selectable settings panel of settings describing elements on one or more web pages | The Accused Instrumentalities present a "dashboard" or "website-builder tool" interface through a browser, allowing a user to add elements and properties to a web page. | ¶23 | col. 5:20-30 |
| at least one of said selectable settings in said panel corresponds to commands to said virtual machine | The Accused Instrumentalities run in modern browsers which contain "virtual machines" (i.e., JavaScript engines) that interpret and execute commands (HTML/JavaScript) generated based on user selections. | ¶¶22, 25 | col. 65:10-13 |
| storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database | User-selected settings for layout, image filenames, text color, and other elements are stored in a database. | ¶24 | col. 6:15-18 |
| building one or more web pages to generate said website and a run time file, where the run time file utilizes information stored in said database to generate virtual machine commands for the display of at least a portion of said one or more web pages | The Accused Instrumentalities use "run time files" (e.g., PHP, JavaScript) that retrieve information from the database to generate HTML, which the complaint defines as "virtual machine commands" that are rendered by the browser's engine. | ¶¶24-26 | col. 66:19-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the term "virtual machine," which the patent specification links to technologies like JAVA applets, can be properly construed to cover the JavaScript engines in modern web browsers as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶22).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory connects server-side "run time files" (e.g., PHP) to client-side "virtual machine commands" (HTML/JavaScript). The case may turn on whether the accused architecture, where a server generates a static or dynamic webpage that is then interpreted by a browser, meets the claim's requirement of a "run time file" that "utilizes information... to generate" commands for the VM in the specific manner envisioned by the patent.
'7,594,168 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for assembling a web site... comprising a server with a build engine... said web site comprising web pages with objects, wherein at least one object is one button or one image object | The Accused Instrumentalities (Drupal/Wordpress) run on a server and provide a "build engine" (the CMS) that allows users to assemble web pages by adding objects like buttons and images. | ¶¶90, 47 | col. 6:1-14 |
| wherein a button or image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly use CSS libraries to add transformations, animations, and timelines to website elements. | ¶¶59, 90 | col. 7:17-27 |
| produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising 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 | The complaint alleges that JSON strings used by the accused tools "reflect" a multidimensional structure and that the underlying database stores data defining object style, number, and page location. | ¶¶38, 92-93 | col. 64:30-38 |
| 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 completed website includes runtime files (HTML/CSS) which a browser's runtime engine uses to render the page based on the style data originating from the database. | ¶¶90, 94 | col. 65:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of the "multidimensional array" limitation by pointing to the structure of JSON strings that "originate from the database" (Compl. ¶92). A likely point of contention will be whether this is sufficient to prove the underlying database itself (e.g., a relational MySQL database) is a "multidimensional array," or if there is a technical mismatch between the claim language and the accused architecture.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires that the system "produce a database... and provide the database to a server." This language suggests a discrete process of generating and transferring a database file. The actual operation of a CMS like WordPress, which typically involves populating a persistent, pre-existing database schema, raises the question of whether it performs this claimed "produce and provide" sequence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement allegation against the '397 patent. The complaint's theory hinges on equating modern browser JavaScript engines with the "virtual machine" of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent, drafted in the Java-era, reads on modern web technologies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly limited to any single technology in the claims. The complaint cites general-purpose definitions to support a broad reading that would cover any software that interprets and executes code (Compl. ¶22). The specification’s abstract reference to a "build tool" and "run time engine" could be argued as a functional description not tied to a specific implementation ('397 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly references "JAVA" and "applets," which operate on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). This context could be used to argue that the inventor contemplated a more specific technology than a generic JavaScript interpreter ('397 Patent, col. 1:33-37, col. 5:62-65).
The Term: "multidimensional array" (’168 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is a key structural limitation in the asserted system claim of the '168 Patent. The strength of the infringement case depends on whether the database structure of WordPress or Drupal can be characterized as a "multidimensional array."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue that a relational database, which stores data in two-dimensional tables that can be joined, functionally creates a "multidimensional" data structure from which information is retrieved, thereby meeting the spirit of the limitation. The complaint attempts this by pointing to the resulting JSON structure as evidence of the underlying data's dimensionality (Compl. ¶92).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification includes a figure explicitly depicting different types of "ARRAY STRUCTURES," including "BOOLEAN RECORDS," "INTEGER RECORDS," and "SERIALIZED FORM" within a block titled "EXTERNAL DATA BASE CREATION" ('397 Patent, Fig. 24). A defendant may argue this points to a specific, more literal data structure, as opposed to the relational tables common in web application databases.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not include a formal count for indirect infringement. While it alleges Defendant offers its tools as an "inducement" to attract customers, it does not plead the specific elements of induced infringement, such as alleging that Defendant's user manuals or instructions actively encourage customers to perform the claimed infringing steps (Compl. ¶20). The primary allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the patents acquired "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶77, 100). This asserts willfulness for any infringing activity occurring after the Defendant was served with the lawsuit. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
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 Java-era context, be construed broadly enough to read on the standard JavaScript engines embedded in the modern web browsers used by the accused systems?
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the complaint's allegation that the accused systems' databases are "multidimensional arrays"—based on an inference from the structure of outputted JSON strings—provide enough factual support to meet this specific claim limitation, or does it represent a fundamental mismatch with the actual database architecture of platforms like WordPress and Drupal?
- Finally, a persistent question will be patent eligibility: although the patents survived a prior § 101 challenge at the pleading stage, the complaint's extensive arguments on the topic suggest Plaintiff anticipates a renewed fight over whether the claims are directed to a specific, concrete improvement in computer functionality or merely an abstract idea of website generation implemented with conventional technology.