Untitled case

Express Mobile, Inc. (XMO), a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), has engaged in extensive patent litigation campaigns concerning its portfolio of "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) web development patents. Founded in 2006 by inventor Steven H. Rempell, Express Mobile claims to hold foundational patents related to mobile and desktop website generation, social media, and e-commerce websites, specifically focusing on methods for creating content that is optimized for display across various devices (cross-platform and responsive design solutions). Express Mobile has notably asserted its patents against numerous large technology and e-commerce companies, including Atlassian, Dropbox, eBay, Expedia, Facebook, Google, HubSpot, Microsoft, Squarespace, GoDaddy, Shopify, Meta, and Amazon.

The specific case, 2:19-cv-05093, was filed by Express Mobile, Inc. in the California Central District Court. However, specific defendants and a presiding judge for this exact case number in the Central District of California are not readily available in public search results, which show the same case number associated with unrelated proceedings in other districts. Nonetheless, the general pattern of Express Mobile's litigation indicates the accused products typically involve website-building tools and platforms, such as GoDaddy's Managed WordPress and Website Builder platforms, or Shopify's website-building tools including its add-to-cart and YouTube functionalities. The sole patent explicitly identified in the prompt for this case is US Patent 9,471,287, titled "System and method for creating and presenting a web page or web site." This patent broadly covers web application delivery and browser-based website building technology, particularly focused on WYSIWYG web development methods and the integration of web services.

This litigation is notable as part of Express Mobile's aggressive and widespread patent monetization strategy targeting major players in the web development and e-commerce industries. The company's lawsuits often involve multiple patents and have resulted in significant legal battles, including appeals to the Federal Circuit and challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For instance, while Express Mobile secured a $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy (in a separate case) after a Federal Circuit reversal of an earlier summary judgment, a $40 million jury verdict against Shopify was later overturned. This demonstrates the high stakes and complex nature of Express Mobile's enforcement efforts and the mixed outcomes it has achieved in its mission to assert its "foundational" web-design patents. No specific inter partes review (IPR) directly challenging US Patent 9,471,287 in isolation was immediately found, though Express Mobile's portfolio has been subject to PTAB proceedings.

Express Mobile, Inc. Patent Infringement Case Terminated in Central District of California

Case Name: Express Mobile, Inc. v. [Defendant(s) TBD]
Case Number: 2:19-cv-05093
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Patent-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
Status: Terminated

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Express Mobile, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under case number 2:19-cv-05093. The specific filing date of the complaint and the name of the defendant(s) in this particular case could not be definitively determined from the publicly available search results. However, a related case, Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc. (2:19-cv-05155), was filed on June 13, 2019, and mentions 2:19-cv-05093 as a related matter.

Termination:
The case 2:19-cv-05093 was terminated on March 16, 2021. While the precise nature of the termination (e.g., voluntary dismissal with or without prejudice, settlement) for this specific case was not explicitly detailed, a related case, Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc. (2:19-cv-05155), concluded with a joint stipulation to dismiss the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and an order of dismissal without prejudice. Given the related nature of these cases and the termination date, it is probable that 2:19-cv-05093 followed a similar path, likely ending in a voluntary dismissal.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:
No specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 were found in the search results. While PTAB proceedings in general were discussed, including an IPR petition filed on February 5, 2021, against Express Mobile, Inc. for a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 B1) where case 2:19-cv-05093 was noted as terminated on March 16, this does not pertain to the patent at issue in the current case summary.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing Express Mobile, Inc. in case 2:19-cv-05093 in the California Central District Court, involving US patent 9471287, using publicly available web search tools.

While Express Mobile, Inc. has been involved in several patent infringement cases concerning patent 9471287 and related patents, these cases were filed in different courts or had different case numbers. For instance:

• In Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, which involved patent 9,471,287, among others, Steptoe LLP represented Express Mobile, Inc. This case was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
• In Express Mobile, Inc. v. Shopify, Inc., Steptoe & Johnson LLP secured a $40 million verdict for Express Mobile, Inc. involving various internet and mobile technology patents, though the specific case number in Delaware was not the one requested.
• Other cases found, such as Express Mobile, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (Case No. 23-1646) and Express Mobile v. Vidal (Case No. 23-1076), involved different patents or were appeals against the USPTO.
• Express Mobile, Inc. v. Liquid Web, LLC and Express Mobile, Inc. v. Namecheap Inc. in the District of Delaware involved patent 9,471,287, with Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC listed as lead attorney for Express Mobile, Inc.
• A PacerMonitor result for Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc. (Case 2:19-cv-05155) in the California Central District Court listed Seth W. Wiener of Law Offices Of Seth W Wiener and Jeffrey Francis Craft of Devlin Law Firm as representing Express Mobile, Inc., but this is a different case number (2:19-cv-05155 vs. 2:19-cv-05093).

Despite targeted searches for case 2:19-cv-05093 in the California Central District Court, no specific counsel of record for the plaintiff, Express Mobile, Inc., could be definitively identified from publicly accessible web resources.

Counsel Identified for Defendant Evolve Media, LLC in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Evolve Media, LLC

In the patent infringement case Express Mobile, Inc. v. Evolve Media, LLC, filed in the California Central District Court under case number 2:19-cv-05093, the defendant is Evolve Media, LLC. The case was terminated on March 16, 2020.

Public records indicate that the following attorneys represented Evolve Media, LLC:

• Daniel P. Hipskind
  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP, Beverly Hills, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Hipskind is a business litigation attorney with a focus on intellectual property cases. He has represented clients in federal trial and appellate courts across the United States, including in California, New York, Delaware, and Texas. He has been recognized as a California Super Lawyer for 2025 and a "Rising Star" from 2014 to 2024 by Super Lawyers Southern California.

(Note: While other attorneys named Daniel Roche and Aaron M. Winstrom appeared in broader search results, their specific connection to Evolve Media, LLC in this particular case (2:19-cv-05093 in the Central District of California) could not be confirmed through direct docket entries within the search results. Therefore, they are not listed as counsel of record for the defendant in this case.)