DCT
2:16-cv-01413
Express Mobile Inc v. Coalition Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Coalition Technologies LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Brent Coon & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-01413, E.D. Tex., 12/15/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts business in the district, the claims arise in the district, and the alleged acts of infringement occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of website building tools, specifically Magento Enterprise Edition and BigCommerce, infringes two patents related to browser-based website generation systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating websites through a browser-based interface, where user design choices are stored in a database and used by a run-time engine to generate the final website, separating the design process from the underlying code.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of both asserted patents via a notice letter sent on September 18, 2015. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents have undergone post-grant proceedings. U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 had Claim 1—a lead independent claim asserted in this case—cancelled by both an ex parte reexamination and an inter partes review. U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 had its asserted claims (1-6) confirmed in an ex parte reexamination.
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 |
| 2015-09-18 | Plaintiff allegedly sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2016-12-15 | 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 as requiring significant technical expertise in languages like HTML and scripting, making them complex and inefficient for creating dynamic, interactive websites (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system that separates the design process from code generation. A user interacts with a "build tool" through a visual interface to define website elements and their properties, which are then stored in an "object database." A distinct "run time engine" is later called by a browser to read the database and execute the instructions to render the complete, interactive website (’397 Patent, Abstract; ’397 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This object-oriented, database-driven architecture aimed to simplify web development by allowing users to create sophisticated, dynamic websites through a graphical interface without deep programming knowledge, a key step toward modern content management systems (’397 Patent, col. 2:50-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 2 (apparatus), and 37 (apparatus), along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites a method of enabling website production by: presenting a selectable settings menu through a browser, where settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine; generating a display based on selections; storing selection information in a database; and using a "run time file" that retrieves the stored information to generate virtual machine commands for displaying the web page.
- Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus) recites an apparatus comprising: an interface for a settings menu; a browser to generate a display; a database to store settings information; and a "build tool" with a "run time file" that uses the stored information to generate commands for a virtual machine.
- Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus) recites an apparatus comprising: a browser-operable interface for building a website; an internal database for storing settings; and a "build tool" with an external database and run time files that use information from 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: Like its parent, the ’168 patent addresses the difficulty of creating dynamic websites with conventional tools, which often require extensive and cumbersome coding (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
- The Patented Solution: This patent details a system centered on a server with a "build engine." The engine assembles a website from "objects" (e.g., buttons, images) and associates them with "styles" that define attributes like transformations and timelines. The invention proposes storing this object and style data in a "multidimensional array" database, which is then provided to a browser-accessible server. A runtime engine within the browser then generates the final website by extracting and processing this data (’168 Patent, Abstract; ’168 Patent, col. 2:1-17).
- Technical Importance: The invention focuses on a highly structured, object-oriented approach where a web page is defined entirely by its constituent objects and their associated styles, providing a systematic way to manage complex, dynamic features like animations (’168 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 (Compl. ¶81).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) recites a system for assembling a website, comprising: a server with a build engine; a website composed of objects (e.g., buttons, images); the server accepting user input to associate a "style" (defining transformations and timelines) with objects; producing a database with a multidimensional array containing the objects, their styles, and page locations; and providing the database to a server where a browser with a runtime engine can generate the website from that data.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "all versions of Magento Enterprise Edition and/or BigCommerce," which it characterizes as "browser-based website and/or web page authoring tool[s]" (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant Coalition Technologies, a web development agency, uses these platforms to build websites for its customers (Compl. ¶16). The alleged functionality involves a user interacting with a browser-based "store-builder tool," using a WYSIWYG editor to select design elements like text alignment, fonts, and images, and having those selections stored in a database. The complaint alleges that runtime files (e.g., PHP, JavaScript, CSS) then retrieve this stored information to generate the final HTML, which is rendered by the user's browser engine—an entity the complaint defines as a "virtual machine" (Compl. ¶6, ¶18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method enabling production of websites...by presenting, through a browser, a user selectable settings menu describing elements | Defendant's tools provide a browser-based "website store-builder tool" where a user can navigate to screens like "Manage Products" to select options. | ¶18 | col. 65:10-15 |
| such setting(s) corresponding to commands to the virtual machine | User selections in the WYSIWYG editor (e.g., font, alignment) result in generated HTML which is interpreted by the browser's engine (alleged to be the "virtual machine") to render the page. | ¶6, ¶18 | col. 65:21-23 |
| storing information regarding selected settings in a database | Selections for layout, text color, image filenames, and other styles are stored in a database. | ¶6, ¶18 | col. 65:30-32 |
| generating a website at least in part by retrieving said information | The accused tools "build one or more web pages to generate a website from at least a portion of a database." | ¶6 | col. 65:33-35 |
| and building one or more web pages to generate said website and a run time file, where the run time file uses the stored information... | The accused tools utilize runtime files (PHP, JavaScript, XML) that retrieve information from the database to generate the final HTML for rendering. | ¶6 | col. 65:35-42 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question concerns the definition of "virtual machine." The infringement theory raises the question of whether a standard web browser's HTML/JavaScript rendering engine, as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶18), falls within the scope of "virtual machine" as contemplated by the patent, which also describes technologies like Java applets and JAR files (’397 Patent, col. 6:8-13).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's characterization of server-side scripts (e.g., PHP) and client-side code (HTML, JavaScript) as a singular "run time file" that generates "virtual machine commands" raises the question of whether this accurately maps to the patent's more discrete architecture or simply re-labels a conventional web request-response cycle (Compl. ¶6, ¶17).
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 website comprising a server with a build engine, the website comprising web pages with objects...the server accepting user input to associate a style with objects | The accused tools are server-based systems that allow users to apply styles to objects on a web page, such as defining hover states for buttons. | ¶82, ¶95 | col. 63:58-66 |
| wherein a button or image object is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines | The accused tools allegedly use CSS libraries, including "CSS-animations and CSS-transitions," to add effects to elements, which the complaint equates to the claimed "transformations and time lines." | ¶82, ¶92 | col. 64:1-3 |
| 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 | The complaint alleges that JSON strings used by the accused tools reflect a multidimensional database structure and that CSS files store data defining object styles and the page on which they apply. | ¶82, ¶84-85 | col. 64:7-13 |
| 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 | The system is alleged to generate the final website using runtime files (HTML and CSS) that contain the object and style data, which is then rendered by the browser (the alleged "runtime engine"). | ¶82, ¶86 | col. 64:16-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether standard web technologies meet the specific structural requirements of the claims. For example, does a combination of JSON data and a standard CSS file constitute the claimed "database with a multidimensional array" (’168 Patent, col. 64:7-10), or is this an overly broad interpretation of the patent's language?
- Technical Questions: An evidentiary question is whether the "CSS-animations and CSS-transitions" available in the accused tools (Compl. ¶92) are functionally and structurally equivalent to the "transformations and time lines" described in the patent, which are associated with a specific object-oriented build process.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 37)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory for the ’397 Patent depends on equating a standard web browser's rendering engine with a "virtual machine." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement; a narrow construction limited to technologies like the Java Virtual Machine could defeat the infringement allegations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions a variety of technologies, including "HTML and its extensions (Dynamic HTML, Javascript, Cascading Style Sheets)" (’397 Patent, col. 2:32-35), which a party could argue supports encompassing the combination of technologies in a modern browser.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures repeatedly reference a discrete "run engine" that is "invoked by the browser" and packaged in "CAB/JAR files" (’397 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:8-13). This suggests the "virtual machine" is a specific, self-contained component separate from the browser itself, not the browser's native rendering engine.
The Term: "database with a multidimensional array" (’168 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading for the ’168 Patent hinges on the accused platforms' data storage methods meeting this limitation. The dispute will likely center on whether standard data formats used in web development, such as JSON, qualify as the specific structure claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "multidimensional array" is a general structural term and that a nested data format like JSON, which the complaint alleges is used, fits this description (Compl. ¶84).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific database structure where object data, style data, and page location are explicitly combined into a "multidimensional array" as part of the build process (’168 Patent, col. 2:10-14). A party could argue this requires a more specific and integrated data structure than simply using separate, standard file formats like CSS and JSON.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement by Defendant's use of the accused tools to build websites (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶81). No separate counts or specific factual allegations supporting a theory of induced or contributory infringement (e.g., encouraging its clients to infringe) are presented.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The allegations are based on purported pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notice letter Plaintiff sent to Defendant on September 18, 2015, and Defendant's alleged continuation of the infringing activities after receiving notice (Compl. ¶70-71, ¶100-101).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological scope: Can the patents’ architecture—describing a distinct "build tool," a "database," and a "run time engine" that appears to contemplate a self-contained executable like a Java applet—be construed to cover a modern web development stack where server-side scripts deliver standard HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to a general-purpose browser for rendering?
- A critical procedural question, arising from events after the complaint was filed, will be the impact of post-grant reviews: Given that a lead asserted claim of the ’397 patent (Claim 1) was cancelled, a central question is how this cancellation will affect the viability of the infringement case for that patent and potentially influence the court's interpretation of related terms in the surviving '168 patent.
- A key evidentiary question for the '168 patent will be one of structural equivalence: Does the accused platforms' use of conventional web data formats, such as JSON objects and CSS stylesheets, satisfy the specific claim requirement for a "database with a multidimensional array" that integrates object, style, and page data, or is there a fundamental mismatch in data architecture?