DCT

1:19-cv-01937

Express Mobile Inc v. Godaddycom LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01937, D. Del., 01/19/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant being a Delaware corporation and conducting substantial business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Website Builder and WordPress website creation platforms infringe five patents related to browser-based website generation tools and systems for presenting information on mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to software platforms that enable users to create and manage websites through graphical, browser-based interfaces, abstracting the underlying code generation and database management.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the '397 and '168 patents were the subject of prior litigation where defendants' motions to dismiss on subject matter eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101 were denied, suggesting the patentee has previously defended the patents against invalidity challenges at the pleading stage.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-02 U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Priority Date
1999-12-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Priority Date
2003-04-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Issue Date
2008-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 Priority Date
2008-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 Priority Date
2008-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 Priority Date
2009-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 Issue Date
2013-02-28 Alleged first notice of infringement of '397 and '168 patents
2015-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 Issue Date
2016-10-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 Issue Date
2018-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 Issue Date
2021-01-19 Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes conventional website construction tools as requiring non-browser-based programs to generate HTML and scripting code. This process is described as lacking the efficiency and real-time visual feedback of a "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG) environment operating directly within a web browser ('397 Patent, col. 1:10-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system with two main components: a "build tool" and a "run time engine." A user interacts with the build tool within their browser to visually design web pages. The user's selections and settings are stored in a database. The system then generates a customized "run time engine" and an HTML shell file, which are uploaded to a web server. When a visitor accesses the website, their browser calls the run time engine, which in turn reads the database and generates the complete website for display ('397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline the web design process by integrating authoring and previewing functions into a single, browser-based environment, thereby abstracting the complexities of code generation from the user (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • presenting a viewable menu having a user selectable panel of settings describing elements on a web site, said panel of settings being presented through a browser on a computer adapted to accept one or more of said selectable settings as inputs;
    • generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof;
    • storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database; and
    • generating one or more web pages of said website from at least a portion of said database and at least one run time file, where said at least one 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.

U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 - "Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent '397 patent, the '168 Patent addresses the technical inefficiencies of conventional web authoring tools that were not browser-based and did not provide a full WYSIWYG experience ('168 Patent, col. 1:20-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a system for assembling a website that includes a server with a "build engine." This build engine is configured to accept user input to create web pages composed of various "objects" (e.g., text, images) and to associate "styles" (e.g., color, font) with those objects. The system then produces a database containing a "multidimensional array" that stores the objects and their associated styles. This database is made accessible to a web browser, which uses a "runtime engine" to extract the data and generate the final website for the end-user ('168 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:7-30).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides a more structured, data-driven approach to website generation, where the content (objects) and presentation rules (styles) are stored systematically in a database for later retrieval and rendering (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A system for assembling a web site comprising a server comprising a build engine configured to:
    • accept user input to create a website comprising a plurality of web pages, where each web page comprises a plurality of objects;
    • accept user input to associate a style with objects of the plurality of web pages;
    • produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the web site;
    • 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 web-site from the objects and style data extracted from the provided database.

U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 - "Systems and methods for presenting information on mobile devices"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses technical challenges in generating and distributing programming for mobile devices over a network (Compl. ¶27). The described solution involves an authoring environment that produces device-specific "Players" and device-independent "Applications," which work together to display information received from a web service on the device's screen (Compl. ¶29).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by systems, like GoDaddy's Website Builder, that store a registry of web components (e.g., maps, videos) and their corresponding web service addresses (e.g., Mapbox, YouTube) to generate and display content on a user's device (Compl. ¶91).

U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 - "Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent aims to solve problems related to generating content for display on mobile devices (Compl. ¶33). The invention defines a system that uses an authoring tool to define User Interface ("UI") objects that correspond to web components, which are then used to produce a device-independent "Application" and a device-dependent "Player" to render content from a web service (Compl. ¶33, ¶35).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves a system with a registry and authoring tool that defines UI objects corresponding to web components, where the UI object is selected either by a user or automatically by the system. The system then produces an application and player to provide inputs to and display outputs from the corresponding web service (Compl. ¶114).

U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 - "Systems and Methods for Programming Mobile Devices"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses technical problems in generating and distributing programming to mobile devices over a network (Compl. ¶39). The described system uses authoring tools to define UI objects, generate application and player code that includes web page views, and display information retrieved from web services using information stored in databases (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶137).
  • Accused Features: The accused method involves using a computer memory to store symbolic names and addresses for web components, an authoring tool to define a UI object corresponding to a web component, storing information in a database, and building an application that utilizes a player to display content generated from the database information (Compl. ¶137).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • GoDaddy's Website Builder and WordPress Websites ("Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Instrumentalities are described as browser-based platforms that enable users to create websites by selecting settings and elements, which are then stored in a database (Compl. ¶46). The platforms retrieve this stored information to generate the final websites for viewing by end-users (Compl. ¶46). The complaint alleges that the final websites are rendered by modern browsers, which rely on engines that fit the definition of a "virtual machine" to interpret and execute code like JavaScript, HTML, and CSS (Compl. ¶47). The complaint positions Defendant as a "well-known company" that generates "billions of dollars of revenue per year" from these services (Compl. ¶45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) presenting a viewable menu having a user selectable panel of settings...being presented through a browser... The Accused Instrumentalities present a viewable menu with a panel of settings, such as font size, through a web browser. ¶51 col. 10:17-23
(b) generating a display in accordance with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof; When a user changes a setting, such as font size, the Website Builder generates an updated display preview substantially contemporaneously with the selection. A screenshot shows the text size of a tagline changing immediately upon user selection (Compl. p. 12). ¶53 col. 6:15-20
(c) storing information representative of one or more user selected settings in a database; User-selected settings are formatted in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and saved to a backend server database. The complaint provides a screenshot showing MySQL database management tools (Compl. p. 13). ¶54-55 col. 6:3-6
(d) generating one or more web pages...from said database and at least one run time file...to generate virtual machine commands... The Website Builder retrieves stored information from the database and uses run time files (e.g., HTML, JavaScript) to generate code that constitutes virtual machine commands interpreted by the browser engine to render the web page. ¶56-58 col. 8:10-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "virtual machine." The complaint alleges that modern browser engines (e.g., Chrome V8, Webkit) are virtual machines (Compl. ¶47, ¶58). A defendant may argue that, in the context of a 1999-priority patent, the term requires a more specific technology, such as the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), which is referenced in the patent's specification (e.g., '397 Patent, col. 2:50-60).
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products generate web pages "from... at least one run time file" in the specific manner claimed, as opposed to generating static HTML pages directly on the server that are then sent to the client browser?

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 comprising a build engine configured to: accept user input to create a website comprising a plurality of web pages, where each web page comprising a plurality of objects; The Accused Instrumentalities comprise GoDaddy's Website Builder editor, hosted on a server, which accepts user input to create a website comprising web pages with multiple objects (e.g., "Cover Image," "Headline," "Paragraph"). The complaint provides a screenshot of the editor interface showing these distinct objects (Compl. p. 19). ¶70-71 col. 5:51-54
accept user input to associate a style with objects of the plurality of web pages; The Website Builder editor allows a user to input fields to associate a style, such as an "Accent" color, with an object. ¶72 col. 7:4-8
produce a database with a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise the web site...; The Website Builder is alleged to save website information in databases that include "multi-dimensional arrays containing the information and settings describing each user's GoDaddy website." ¶74 col. 5:35-37
provide the database to a server accessible to web browser; GoDaddy's servers host users' websites, making the database of object and style data accessible over the Internet to web browsers. ¶77 col. 8:21-36
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 extracted from the provided database. A visitor's web browser is provided access to runtime engine files that retrieve object and style data from GoDaddy's databases, allowing the browser to generate the website. ¶78 col. 8:1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The construction of "multidimensional array" will be critical. The complaint asserts that GoDaddy's databases include such arrays (Compl. ¶74), but the provided evidence includes a screenshot of data formatted in JSON (Compl. p. 22). The dispute may turn on whether a nested data structure like JSON or a relational database table meets the claim's more specific structural requirement.
    • Technical Questions: What is the specific architecture of the accused "build engine" and "runtime engine," and how does it map to the components described in the '168 patent's specification? The complaint makes conclusory allegations about these components but does not detail their specific implementation in the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "virtual machine" ('397 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the '397 Patent. The complaint's theory depends on a broad interpretation where modern web browser engines qualify as "virtual machines." A narrower construction could present a significant hurdle for the Plaintiff's case.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention in the context of HTML, JavaScript, and browsers, stating that a browser interprets "HTML and Script Code" ('397 Patent, col. 1:17-21). This language may support a construction that includes any software environment that interprets and executes code.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently references Java-specific technologies, such as "JAVA Applet," the "JAVA Virtual machine," and "JAR" files ('397 Patent, col. 2:50-60, col. 8:28-32). This may suggest that the inventor contemplated a more specific, Java-based virtual machine as it was understood at the time of the invention.

The Term: "multidimensional array" ('168 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific data structure that the claim requires the system to "produce." The infringement allegation hinges on whether the data storage method used by GoDaddy (alleged to be databases utilizing JSON) can be characterized as producing a "multidimensional array."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the database as containing "the objects that comprise the web site," which could be argued to encompass any structured data format that logically organizes website objects and their attributes. The specification also refers generally to storing "multimedia objects" and their various properties ('168 Patent, col. 5:15-20).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes storing data in "one-dimensional," "two-dimensional," "three-dimensional," and "four-dimensional" arrays to manage different levels of data (e.g., web page data, object data, paragraph line data) ('168 Patent, col. 22:20-50). This detailed description could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, nested array-based data model rather than a generic structured data format.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's advertising, instruction materials, training, and support services, which allegedly encourage customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶61-62, ¶82-83). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Instrumentalities are a material component specifically made for infringing and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶63, ¶84).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the '397 and '168 patents, with notice allegedly provided as early as February 28, 2013 (Compl. ¶60, ¶81). For the '755, '287, and '044 patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge acquired at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶103, ¶128, ¶158).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the term "virtual machine," rooted in the 1999-priority '397 patent's context of Java applets, be construed to encompass the modern, JavaScript-centric browser engines that power the Accused Instrumentalities?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does GoDaddy's use of databases and data formats like JSON for its website builder meet the specific "multidimensional array" limitation recited in the '168 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed data architecture and the accused implementation?
  • A central theme of the case will likely be patent eligibility: given the complaint’s references to surviving prior § 101 challenges, the court will be asked to determine whether the patents, which are directed to methods of creating websites, claim a patent-eligible technological improvement or are directed to an abstract idea performed on a generic computer, a question whose legal framework continues to evolve.