DCT
1:18-cv-01181
Express Mobile Inc v. Namecheap Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Namecheap Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01181, D. Del., 08/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in the State of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s provision of website building tools, such as Wordpress and Joomla, infringes two patents related to browser-based website generation technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods that allow users to design and publish complex, multimedia-rich websites directly within a web browser, abstracting the underlying code from the user.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents survived a motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a prior case in the Eastern District of Texas, where a Magistrate Judge found the claims "address a problem particular to the internet: dynamically generating websites and displaying web pages based on stored user-selected settings."
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 |
| 2017-01-01 | Prior litigation involving asserted patents initiated (approx. date) |
| 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 creation tools of the late 1990s as being "remarkably slow and inefficient," poorly suited for multimedia applications, and unable to properly adapt websites to different screen resolutions and browser types ('397 Patent, col. 1:11-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Browser Based build engine" where a user can design a website through a browser interface. This tool separates the user's design choices (e.g., object placement, styles, animations) from the final code by storing these choices as data in an object database. A separate, customized "run time engine" is then generated, which reads the database to construct and display the final, dynamic website for an end-user, as shown in the process flowchart of Figure 2 ('397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-50; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to simplify the creation of sophisticated, interactive websites by non-programmers and improve performance by creating an optimized runtime engine tailored to the specific content of the site ('397 Patent, col. 2:50-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 37, as well as dependent claims 2-4 and 8-11 (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- presenting, through a browser, a user selectable panel of settings to describe elements on a web page;
- where at least one setting corresponds to a command for a virtual machine;
- generating a display that contemporaneously reflects the selected settings;
- storing information representing the selected settings in a database;
- generating a website by retrieving that stored information; and
- building a "run time file" that uses the stored information to generate "virtual machine commands" to display the web page(s).
- Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus):
- an interface for building a website, operable through a browser, to present and accept settings and generate a display;
- an "internal database" associated with the interface for storing setting information; and
- a "build tool" to construct web pages using an "external database" (corresponding to the internal one) and "run time files," which use the external database 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's application, this patent addresses the same problems of inefficient and static prior art website creation tools (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
- The Patented Solution: The '168 patent focuses on a system for assembling a website where a server's "build engine" accepts user input to associate specific "styles" with objects on a web page. These styles can include complex values defining "transformations and time lines" for animations. The system stores this object and style data in a "multidimensional array" database, which is then used by a runtime engine to generate the final website (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-17).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a structured, data-driven framework for creating dynamic, animated websites where the visual behavior of elements is defined as data rather than being hard-coded, a key concept in modern web application development (’168 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A system with a server and a build engine for assembling a website;
- The website comprises pages with objects like buttons or images;
- The server accepts user input to associate a "style" with the objects, where the style includes values for "transformations and time lines";
- Each web page is "defined entirely by" the objects and their associated styles;
- The system produces a "multidimensional array" database containing the object and style data; and
- A web browser with a "runtime engine" is configured to generate the website from the data in that database.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The website building tools provided by Defendant Namecheap, specifically identified as "Wordpress and/or Joomla" (Compl. ¶19). These are collectively termed the "Accused Instrumentalities."
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities are browser-based tools that allow users to build and edit websites through a graphical interface, often called a "dashboard," without needing to write code directly (Compl. ¶¶23, 30).
- Users make selections in a "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) editor to define elements, colors, layouts, and other properties. These choices are then stored in a database (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 51).
- The live website is generated "at run time" when server-side scripts (e.g., PHP) and client-side code (e.g., JavaScript) retrieve information from the database to create the final HTML page that is rendered in a visitor's browser (Compl. ¶¶24-25).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendant offers these widely-used tools to attract and retain web hosting customers, and that providing these services is commercially important to Defendant's business (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 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 panel of settings... | The Accused Instrumentalities present a website-builder tool or "dashboard" to the user through a browser. | ¶23 | col. 66:5-9 |
| at least one of said selectable settings... corresponds to commands to a virtual machine... | Selections made by the user are ultimately translated into HTML and JavaScript, which the complaint alleges are commands for the browser's JavaScript engine, asserted to be a "virtual machine." | ¶22, 25 | col. 66:10-14 |
| generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof... | The WYSIWYG editor immediately updates the display to reflect user selections, such as text alignment or font styles. | ¶23 | col. 66:15-16 |
| storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database... | User selections for layout, text color, image filenames, and other settings are stored in a database. | ¶24 | col. 66:17-18 |
| generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information... | The Accused Instrumentalities build the web pages that form the website by retrieving the stored user settings from the database. | ¶24 | col. 66:19-21 |
| building one or more web pages... and a run time file, where at least one run time file utilizes information stored in said database to generate virtual machine commands... | The complaint alleges that PHP template files, JavaScript files, and other files are "runtime files" that use the database to generate the final HTML, which acts as commands for the browser's rendering and JavaScript engines. | ¶24, 26 | col. 66:21-26 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the term "virtual machine," in a patent with a 1999 priority date and numerous references to the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), read on modern browser-based JavaScript engines as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶22)?
- Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the collection of template and script files in a system like WordPress constitutes the "run time file" envisioned by the patent, which describes a process for creating a customized and compiled runtime engine (e.g., a CAB/JAR file)? (’397 Patent, col. 8:26-31).
U.S. Patent No. 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... | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to be systems for building websites, comprising a server that runs the WordPress or Joomla software. | ¶66-67 | col. 64:57-58 |
| said server accepting user input to associate a style with said plurality of objects... that includes values defining transformations and time lines... | The complaint alleges users can select styles for objects and that the accused tools support CSS architecture for transformations. | ¶48, 70 | col. 64:63-65 |
| wherein each web page is defined entirely by the plurality of objects that comprise the web page and the style associated with the object... | The complaint alleges that JSON strings generated by the accused tools originate from the database and reflect the structure and content that comprise the website. | ¶69 | col. 65:1-3 |
| produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the web site... | Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that the database structure used by the accused tools, reflected in JSON strings, is a "multidimensional array structured database." | ¶69 | col. 65:4-6 |
| provide said database to a server accessible to a web browser; wherein the database is produced such that a web browser with access to a runtime engine is configured to generate the web site from the objects and style data... | The accused systems are alleged to use the database at runtime to generate the final website, which is then rendered by a web browser. | ¶67, 71 | col. 65:7-12 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the phrase "defined entirely by" mean that the objects and styles in the database must be the sole source of the page's definition? A key dispute may arise over whether the core code, themes, and plugins of a CMS like WordPress also "define" the page, potentially placing the accused systems outside the claim scope.
- Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the database structure of WordPress or Joomla is, in fact, a "multidimensional array" as required by the claim, or is this a conclusory allegation based on the format of data (JSON) extracted from it?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397:
The Term: "virtual machine"
Context and Importance: This term's scope is fundamental to the infringement case. Plaintiff's theory requires a broad construction covering modern JavaScript engines. A narrower construction limited to Java-based technologies, which were prevalent at the time of invention, could be fatal to the infringement claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "virtual machine" without explicit limitation to a specific technology like Java (’397 Patent, col. 66:13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily and repeatedly discusses the invention in the context of Java, including "JAVA Applet," "JAVA Wrapper," "JAR files," and a "run time engine" that is "compiled" (’397 Patent, col. 1:59-65; col. 7:16-22; col. 9:8-12). A defendant may argue this context limits the claim term to the technologies disclosed.
The Term: "internal database" / "external database" (in claim 37)
Context and Importance: Claim 37 requires a specific architecture with two distinct databases. Infringement hinges on whether the accused products can be mapped to this two-database structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires proving a specific data architecture that may not exist in monolithic CMS platforms.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the terms, which could allow for a functional interpretation where any two separate data stores used for building versus running the site meet the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and description imply a clear architectural separation. The "internal database" is described as associated with the build interface, while the "external database" is part of the final generated website package used by the runtime engine, suggesting a distinction between a working/development database and a deployed/production database (’397 Patent, col. 8:12-19; Fig. 3a; Fig. 4a).
For U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168:
- The Term: "defined entirely by"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is absolute and its construction is likely to be a central point of dispute. If interpreted strictly, it could create a high bar for proving infringement against modular systems that rely on a combination of database content, theme files, and core application code.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "entirely" refers to the user-created aspects of the page (content and styling), distinguishing them from the underlying, non-user-specific platform code needed to render any page.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "entirely" suggests exclusivity. The patent's summary describes a system where the "run time procedure creates a compressed program custom engineered and sized for the web site," which may support the view that the resulting package is a self-contained entity defined only by its own components (’168 Patent, col. 2:20-23).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for indirect infringement, but it alleges facts that may support such a claim. It states that Defendant offers the accused tools at "reduced pricing as an inducement to attract customers" who then use the tools to build websites (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents from the date the lawsuit was filed. It asserts that "Defendant was made aware of the '397 patent and its infringement thereof at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" and that subsequent infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶¶54-55, 72-73).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on the application of patent claims, drafted in the era of Java applets and early dynamic HTML, to modern, open-source content management systems. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of temporal scope: Can the term "virtual machine", rooted in the patent's explicit context of Java-based technology, be construed broadly enough to encompass the JavaScript engines that are integral to modern web browsers?
- A dispositive infringement question will be one of technical limitation: Do the accused WordPress and Joomla systems, which rely on a combination of database records, server-side theme files, and core platform code, meet the '168 patent's exacting requirement that a web page be "defined entirely by" the objects and styles stored in its database?
- A structural question for claim 37 of the '397 patent will be whether the data architecture of the accused products maps onto the claimed "internal database" and "external database" structure, or if these platforms utilize a more integrated data model that does not align with the patent's specific two-database system.