DCT
2:17-cv-00065
Express Mobile Inc v. Wavemaker Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Express Mobile, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: WaveMaker, Inc. (Delaware) and Pramati Technologies Private Limited (India)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Brent Coon & Associates, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00065, E.D. Tex., 01/19/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants sell products and services in the Eastern District of Texas, conduct business in the district, and the alleged acts of infringement occur there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "WaveMaker Enterprise" website building tools infringe two patents related to browser-based systems for generating websites.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of browser-based, visual ("What You See Is What You Get" or WYSIWYG) website development platforms, which allow users to create and design websites without needing to write code directly.
- Key Procedural History: Post-filing, both patents-in-suit have undergone post-grant proceedings. U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 was subject to both ex parte reexamination and inter partes review (IPR), resulting in the cancellation of independent claim 1, which is asserted in the complaint. The patentability of other asserted claims, including independent claims 2 and 37, was confirmed. U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 was subject to ex parte reexamination where the patentability of asserted claims 1-6 was confirmed.
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 |
| 2017-01-19 | 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 that rely on HTML and scripting languages as being limited, complex, and slow for creating dynamic, rich-media applications. (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-23). It specifically notes that these conventional approaches suffer from performance issues and are often constrained by the user's screen resolution. (’397 Patent, col. 1:39-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a browser-based system that separates the website design process from the final code generation. A user interacts with a "build tool" inside a browser to visually assemble a website, with user selections for elements and styles being stored in an object database. This database is then packaged with a "run time engine." When a visitor views the website, the run time engine reads the database and dynamically generates the website, allowing for more complex interactions and animations than conventional static pages. (’397 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The described technology represents a shift from static page authoring to creating more interactive, application-like web experiences through a browser-based interface, abstracting the underlying code complexity from the designer. (’397 Patent, col. 1:48-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 37.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Presenting a selectable settings panel through a browser, where settings correspond to commands for a virtual machine.
- Generating a display based on the selected settings.
- Storing information for the settings in a database.
- Generating a website by retrieving that information.
- Building web pages and a run time file, which uses the stored information to generate virtual machine commands for display.
- Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus):
- An interface to present a settings menu through a browser, with settings corresponding to virtual machine commands.
- A browser to generate a display from the settings.
- A database to store setting information.
- A build tool with a run time file to generate web pages using the stored information to create virtual machine commands.
- Independent Claim 37 (Apparatus):
- An interface for building a website by controlling elements via a browser.
- An internal database associated with the interface to store setting information.
- A build tool to construct web pages, having an external database with corresponding data and run time files that use the external database to generate virtual machine commands.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-6, 9-15, 17, 19-20, 23-25, and 35-36, and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶17).
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 shortcomings of conventional web design tools, such as their inability to easily create dynamic, feature-rich web applications. (’168 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for assembling a website using a server-based build engine. The system defines a web page as a collection of objects (e.g., buttons, images) and associated styles, which can include dynamic properties like "transformations and time lines." All information defining the objects and their styles is stored in a "multidimensional array" database. This database is then provided to a server accessible by a web browser, which uses a runtime engine to extract the data and render the final website. (’168 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-col. 3:5).
- Technical Importance: This patent emphasizes a structured, object-oriented approach to website generation, where dynamic styles are first-class components, enabling the creation of complex animations and interactive elements managed through a centralized database structure. (’168 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A system with a server and a build engine for assembling a website made of objects.
- The server accepts user input to associate styles with objects, where styles include values for transformations and timelines.
- Web pages are defined entirely by these objects and styles.
- The system produces a database with a multidimensional array containing object data, style data, number, and page location.
- The database is provided to a server so a browser with a runtime engine can generate the website from the extracted data.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4 and 6. (Compl. ¶100).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are "website building tools used by Defendants, such as, for example, WaveMaker Enterprise" (Compl. ¶18).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that WaveMaker Enterprise is a browser-based, visual website builder that allows users to create websites by adding "widgets" and configuring their properties through a WYSIWYG interface (Compl. ¶21). User selections for elements like text color, layout, and image alignment are allegedly stored and used to build the final web pages, which consist of HTML and CSS files (Compl. ¶21, ¶105). The tool is also alleged to feature "Responsive Web Design," enabling dynamic resizing of web pages for different devices (Compl. ¶78). The complaint alleges significant revenue for the defendant companies, suggesting the accused tools are a key part of their business offerings (Compl. ¶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 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an interface to present a settings menu which describes elements, said panel presented through a browser... | The Accused Instrumentalities provide a "website builder tool" through a browser where users can add "widgets and widget properties." | ¶24 | col. 66:5-9 |
| ...where the selectable setting(s) corresponds to commands to the virtual machine; | The complaint alleges that the browser's engine, which interprets JavaScript and HTML, is a "virtual machine" and that the generated HTML represents "virtual machine commands." | ¶24 | col. 66:10-14 |
| a browser to generate a display in accordance with selected setting(s); | The WYSIWYG editor allegedly updates the display "immediately" to reflect user-selected options such as image alignment or font styles. | ¶24 | col. 66:15-17 |
| a database for storing information regarding selected settings; | The system stores user selections such as "text color," "layout, image filenames, thumbnails, and paragraph margin settings." | ¶24 | col. 66:18-19 |
| and a build tool having run time file(s) for generating web page(s) and using stored information to generate commands to the virtual machine... | The Accused Instrumentalities build web pages from the stored data. At run time, files use this information to generate HTML, which is then rendered by the browser's engine (the alleged "virtual machine"). | ¶24 | col. 66:20-25 |
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... one button or one image object... | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to be a system with a build engine for creating websites composed of objects, referred to as "widgets." | ¶101-102 | col. 64:49-54 |
| 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 system allegedly allows users to apply styles to objects. The complaint alleges that "API directive animation parameters, CSS-animations, and CSS-transitions" correspond to the claimed "transformations and time lines." | ¶101, ¶45 | col. 64:55-59 |
| ...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 tool reflect a "multidimensional array structured database" and that CSS files store object styles and their page location. | ¶103-104 | col. 64:60-65 |
| ...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 from the objects and style data extracted... | The system allegedly generates a completed website with "customized runtime files, an HTML file and a second unique CSS file," from which a browser's runtime engine can extract data to generate the website. | ¶101, ¶105 | col. 65:1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’397 Patent hinges on whether the term "virtual machine" can be construed to mean a modern web browser's standard HTML/JavaScript rendering engine. The patent was filed in 1999, and its specification makes numerous references to Java technology, which may suggest a narrower, more specific meaning (e.g., a Java Virtual Machine) was intended (’397 Patent, col. 1:29-33). The complaint's reliance on a dictionary definition for this key technical term raises a significant question for claim construction (Compl. ¶21).
- Technical Questions: A central question for the ’168 Patent is whether the accused product's use of "JSON strings" and "CSS database file[s]" meets the specific limitation of "a database with a multidimensional array" that contains data for object style, number, and page indication (Compl. ¶103-104). The court will need to determine if the actual data structure in the accused product corresponds to the structure claimed in the patent.
- Architectural Questions: For claim 37 of the ’397 Patent, a point of contention may be the distinction between an "internal database" and an "external database." The complaint's allegations do not clearly map the accused system's architecture onto this specific two-database structure, creating a potential mismatch.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "virtual machine" (’397 Patent)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement case for the ’397 patent relies on this term covering a standard web browser's rendering engine. Its definition is therefore critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning in 1999, when the patent was filed, may differ from its broader modern usage, creating a focal point for non-infringement arguments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions both "HTML and Javascript" and "JAVA," which could support an interpretation that includes any environment that interprets code, not just a specific one. (’397 Patent, col. 1:11-33). The complaint argues for this broad interpretation by citing a general dictionary definition (Compl. ¶21).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily references technologies like "JAVA engine," "JAVA applet," "CAB/JAR files," and a "JAVA wrapper," suggesting the inventors may have contemplated a more specific technology, like the Java Virtual Machine, as the "virtual machine." (’397 Patent, col. 1:57-61, col. 2:54-58, col. 9:8-11).
Term: "database with a multidimensional array" (’168 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the structure claimed in the ’168 patent. The infringement case depends on mapping the accused product's data storage (allegedly "JSON strings") to this specific database structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical specifics of what constitutes a "multidimensional array" versus other forms of structured data will be a key factual dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes storing various objects and their attributes, which is consistent with a complex, structured database. The complaint alleges the accused product's JSON strings have dimensions for "pages," "columns," "sections," and "modules," which may support a broader view of what constitutes a multidimensional array (Compl. ¶103).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, stating that data is stored in "two-dimensional, three dimensional and four-dimensional arrays" and describes the loops used to define them, including high watermarks for various object properties. (’168 Patent, col. 22:1-41). A defendant could argue that unless the accused product's data structure mirrors this specific implementation, it does not meet the claim limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe by claiming Defendants provide "instruction materials, training, and services" for the Accused Instrumentalities, thereby actively aiding and abetting their customers' direct infringement (Compl. ¶88, ¶120).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on notice of infringement occurring "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶86, ¶118). This establishes a basis for potential enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of procedural effect: Given that asserted independent claim 1 of the ’397 patent was cancelled in post-grant proceedings after the complaint was filed, how will the court address the infringement count that is premised on it? This raises a threshold issue for the viability and scope of the allegations related to the ’397 patent.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "virtual machine," which is rooted in the 1999 technological context of Java applets described in the ’397 patent, be construed broadly enough to encompass the standard JavaScript and HTML rendering engines of modern web browsers as the complaint alleges?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused WaveMaker Enterprise platform's use of JSON strings and CSS files for data storage meet the specific claim requirements of a "database with a multidimensional array" (’168 patent) and the distinct "internal" vs. "external" database architecture (’397 patent), or will discovery reveal a fundamental mismatch in technical implementation?