Litigation

Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc.

2:19-cv-05155

Filed
2019-06-13

Patents at issue (1)

9471287PTAB: final decision

Summary

A patent infringement case filed by Express Mobile, Inc. against Advantage AMP, Inc. in the California Central District Court on June 13, 2019, involving US patent 9471287.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement case, Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc., was initiated on June 13, 2019, in the California Central District Court, assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05155, with Judge George H. Wu overseeing status conferences. The plaintiff, Express Mobile, Inc., is a New York-based entity described as a "patent assertion entity" (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). Founded in 2006, Express Mobile asserts foundational patents related to Web 2.0 and mobile technology, particularly focusing on What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) website development methods and the integration of web services into web and mobile solutions. The defendant, Advantage AMP, Inc., is a subsidiary of Advantage Solutions Inc., a prominent omnichannel retail solutions agency. Advantage AMP operates as a full-service marketing agency, providing services encompassing digital and social media, e-commerce solutions, and content creation, which are the likely accused instrumentalities in this litigation.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287, titled "Systems and methods for displaying website information, integrating widgets, and programming, especially on mobile devices". This patent is part of a family of patents (including 9,063,755 and 9,928,044) that Express Mobile frequently asserts in its widespread litigation campaign against web development and e-commerce platforms. The case is notable for being part of Express Mobile's aggressive, broad-based patent enforcement strategy, which has seen the PAE file numerous lawsuits against major technology and e-commerce companies like GoDaddy, Shopify, Facebook, Google, and Wix.

A significant development impacting this case's procedural posture is the outcome of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287, along with related patents, was challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and found unpatentable as obvious. This PTAB decision was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on December 8, 2025, in the case Shopify Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc.. This Federal Circuit affirmation likely renders the asserted claims of the '287 patent unenforceable, which would typically lead to a dismissal or settlement of the district court litigation, thereby concluding Express Mobile's claims against Advantage AMP based on this patent.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc.

The patent infringement case of Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc., filed in the California Central District Court (Case No. 2:19-cv-05155), was initiated on June 13, 2019, and concluded relatively quickly with a dismissal without prejudice in January 2020. The case involved US Patent 9471287.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • Complaint Filed: Express Mobile, Inc. filed its complaint alleging patent infringement against Advantage AMP, Inc. on June 13, 2019.
  • Answer Filed: Advantage AMP, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint with a jury demand on January 6, 2020. The defendant also filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement and Certificate of Interested Parties on the same day, identifying Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC as its corporate parent.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Given the swift resolution of the case, there were no significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment filed and adjudicated.

Claim Construction (Markman)

The case did not progress to the claim construction (Markman) stage due to its early dismissal.

Discovery Milestones

No significant discovery milestones were reached or reported on the public docket before the case's termination.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The litigation did not proceed to trial, and therefore, there was no verdict or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

  • Status Conference: A status conference was held on January 9, 2020, where the court and counsel conferred regarding settlement. The court continued the hearing to February 13, 2020, advising that it would be vacated if a stipulation to dismiss was filed by February 11, 2020.
  • Joint Stipulation to Dismiss: A Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) was filed by Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. on January 24, 2020.
  • Order of Dismissal: The case was dismissed without prejudice by Judge George H. Wu on January 24, 2020, following the joint stipulation. The case was then terminated.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 9471287 did not yield any active or completed proceedings. While a petition for inter partes review of a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 B1) was found in a broader context involving Express Mobile Inc., it is not the patent asserted in this specific litigation. Therefore, there is no indication that parallel PTAB proceedings affected this case.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc.

The patent infringement case of Express Mobile, Inc. v. Advantage AMP, Inc., filed in the California Central District Court (Case No. 2:19-cv-05155), was initiated on June 13, 2019, and concluded relatively quickly with a dismissal without prejudice in January 2020. The case involved US Patent 9471287.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • Complaint Filed: Express Mobile, Inc. filed its complaint alleging patent infringement against Advantage AMP, Inc. on June 13, 2019.
  • Answer Filed: Advantage AMP, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint with a jury demand on January 6, 2020. The defendant also filed a Corporate Disclosure Statement and Certificate of Interested Parties on the same day, identifying Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC as its corporate parent.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Given the swift resolution of the case, there were no significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment filed and adjudicated.

Claim Construction (Markman)

The case did not progress to the claim construction (Markman) stage due to its early dismissal.

Discovery Milestones

No significant discovery milestones were reached or reported on the public docket before the case's termination.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The litigation did not proceed to trial, and therefore, there was no verdict or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

  • Status Conference: A status conference was held on January 9, 2020, where the court and counsel conferred regarding settlement. The court continued the hearing to February 13, 2020, advising that it would be vacated if a stipulation to dismiss was filed by February 11, 2020.
  • Joint Stipulation to Dismiss: A Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) was filed by Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. on January 24, 2020.
  • Order of Dismissal: The case was dismissed without prejudice by Judge George H. Wu on January 24, 2020, following the joint stipulation. The case was then terminated.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically related to U.S. Patent No. 9471287 did not yield any active or completed proceedings. While Express Mobile Inc. has been involved in inter partes review petitions for other patents, such as U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 B1, there is no indication of parallel PTAB proceedings concerning patent 9471287 that would have impacted this specific litigation.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Express Mobile, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators.

Desmarais LLP (New York, NY) is a key firm representing Express Mobile.

  • John M. Desmarais (Founding Partner, Lead Counsel) - Based in New York, he is a nationally recognized trial attorney with extensive experience in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including patent disputes for major technology and life sciences companies. He has secured significant verdicts for plaintiffs, including a $1.5 billion verdict for Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft and a $372 million judgment for Ravgen in a prenatal testing patent case. He is also noted for securing defense verdicts for companies like Apple, Cisco, and Google. Desmarais is admitted to practice in California, New York, and Washington, D.C., and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The firm operates on flexible fee structures, including flat-fee and contingent fee arrangements.
  • Steven Balcof (Partner) - Focuses on the litigation and trial of patent and trade secret disputes, representing both plaintiffs and defendants before district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, as well as appeals to the Federal Circuit.

Irvin Feurich Law Corporation (Los Angeles, CA) is serving as local counsel.

  • Ryan J. Irvin (Counsel) - As local counsel, he provides expertise in California Central District Court procedures. Specific patent litigation experience beyond local counsel role is not immediately available.

Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP also represents Express Mobile in some of its other patent enforcement cases.

Steptoe LLP successfully represented Express Mobile in a separate case against GoDaddy.com, securing a $170 million jury verdict for infringement of other foundational web-design patents. The Steptoe team included Jay Nuttall (lead trial counsel), John Abramic, Robert Kappers, Kate Tellez, Christopher Suarez, and Candice Kwark. This indicates Express Mobile uses multiple firms for its litigation campaigns.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The defendant, Advantage AMP, Inc., is represented by Alan Grayson Laquer of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record:

  • Alan Grayson Laquer
    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, California.
    • Note on experience: Quinn Emanuel is a prominent law firm specializing in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation, and represents many leading technology companies as both plaintiffs and defendants. The firm has a strong track record in patent cases across various venues in the United States, including California.