EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. ADP, LLC

An analysis of this patent infringement litigation reveals a classic non-practicing entity (NPE) assertion campaign targeting a major operating company. The plaintiff, Express Mobile, Inc., is a patent assertion entity that holds patents but does not produce any products or services. It generates revenue by licensing and litigating its patent portfolio. The defendant, ADP, LLC, is a well-known, multi-billion dollar provider of human resources management software and services, including payroll processing, tax and compliance services, and benefits administration for corporate clients. This case represents a common pattern where an NPE sues a technology-implementing operating company over widely used functionalities.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleged that ADP's mobile applications and mobile-accessible websites infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. The '397 patent, titled "Method and system for creating and displaying a web site for wireless devices," generally describes a technique for automatically generating a version of a website specifically adapted for viewing on the smaller screens of mobile devices. Express Mobile's complaint targeted ADP's platforms that allow employees of its client companies to access HR and payroll information from their smartphones and other mobile devices, such as the ADP Mobile Solutions App. The case was assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark, who has since been elevated to the Federal Circuit. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation due to its judiciary's deep experience with complex patent cases and a body of case law that is often perceived as balanced for both plaintiffs and defendants.

This case is notable primarily as one data point in Express Mobile's extensive litigation campaign. The NPE has filed dozens of lawsuits asserting the '397 patent and related assets against a diverse array of companies in various sectors, including retail, travel, and finance, such as Home Depot, Expedia, and Charles Schwab. This broad-based assertion strategy is a hallmark of many NPE business models. The widespread use of the accused technology—adapting web content for mobile viewing—made a large number of companies potential targets. The case against ADP was ultimately dismissed on March 13, 2018, following a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, suggesting a settlement was reached between the parties. This outcome is also typical of many NPE cases, which frequently settle before reaching trial.

Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Express Mobile, Inc. and ADP, LLC was resolved before any substantive court rulings on the merits of the case. The final disposition was part of a broader legal strategy by Express Mobile involving U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, which was concurrently being litigated against numerous other technology companies and challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2017)

On 2017-06-12, Express Mobile, Inc. filed a complaint in the District of Delaware, alleging that ADP, LLC infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. This patent generally relates to a "browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." While specific filings like ADP's answer and any counterclaims are not available through public web sources, standard practice in such litigation would involve an answer denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the patent.

Parallel Proceedings and their Impact

The case against ADP did not proceed in isolation. Express Mobile was engaged in a significant, multi-front litigation campaign involving the '397 patent. The developments in these parallel proceedings would have been central to the strategic decisions made in the ADP case.

• Widespread Litigation: Express Mobile filed suits against a number of large technology companies, including GoDaddy, Shopify, Google, and Meta (Facebook), asserting infringement of the '397 patent and other related patents. This campaign saw mixed results, including a substantial $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy in late 2025, but also significant setbacks, such as a reversal of a $40 million verdict against Shopify on appeal in late 2025.

• Parallel PTAB Reviews: The validity of the '397 patent was challenged in multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB.

  • Several technology companies, including Google and Facebook, filed IPRs challenging the patentability of the '397 patent's claims.
  • Crucially, in parallel litigation against Shopify, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted that a number of claims from the '397 patent had been deemed unpatentable in PTAB proceedings, a decision that the appellate court subsequently affirmed. The successful invalidation of asserted patent claims in these administrative proceedings would have significantly weakened Express Mobile's position in all pending litigations, including the one against ADP.

Final Outcome: Dismissal

The case against ADP, LLC was ultimately dismissed. Although a specific court order detailing the reasons for the dismissal is not available in the public search results, the context of the parallel proceedings strongly suggests a resolution before significant litigation milestones were reached.

There is no public record of any substantive motions to dismiss, summary judgment motions, or a Markman claim construction hearing in the ADP case. This indicates that the case was likely resolved at an early stage.

The most probable outcome is that Express Mobile and ADP reached a confidential settlement, leading to a joint stipulation of dismissal. This is a common resolution in patent litigation, particularly when the patent-in-suit is facing strong invalidity challenges in parallel PTAB proceedings and has a mixed record of success in other court cases. The cost of litigation and the uncertainty created by the other proceedings would have provided a strong incentive for both parties to settle. No evidence could be found that ADP filed its own IPR against the '397 patent.

Based on court filings and law firm biographical information, the counsel of record for plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. was the Wilmington, Delaware firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. The primary attorneys from the firm who appeared on the docket were its founding partners.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously practiced at Fish & Richardson P.C. and O'Melveny & Myers LLP. He has been recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property annually since 2013 and was named a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers from 2012-2014 for Intellectual Property Litigation.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Weinblatt, a registered patent attorney for over 20 years, previously practiced at Fish & Richardson P.C. and has argued numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit. He was recognized by Patexia's 2024 CAFC Intelligence Report as a top 25 attorney for Federal Circuit cases and secured a notable reversal on a Section 101 dismissal in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (2017).

Counsel for Defendant ADP, LLC

Defendant ADP, LLC was represented by attorneys from the national law firm Baker Botts L.L.P., who served as lead counsel, and the Delaware-based firm Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, who served as local counsel.

Lead Counsel

• Robert L. Maier, Jr. (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P., New York, NY
  • Note: Maier chairs the New York Intellectual Property group at Baker Botts and serves on the firm's Executive Committee; he is a lead trial lawyer with extensive experience in high-stakes patent infringement disputes for global technology companies.

• Neil P. Sirota (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P., New York, NY
  • Note: Sirota is the firm's Technology Sector Chair for Intellectual Property and has nearly 30 years of experience litigating high-technology patent cases in federal courts, the ITC, and the PTAB.

Local Counsel

• Jack B. Blumenfeld (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE (at the time of the case); now at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.
  • Note: A highly-regarded veteran of the Delaware patent bar, Blumenfeld has deep experience in complex patent litigation and has represented major technology and pharmaceutical companies.

• Stephen J. Kraftschik (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE (at the time of the case); now at Polsinelli PC.
  • Note: Kraftschik is a seasoned litigator with significant experience in Delaware patent cases, often serving as Delaware counsel for national trial teams.