Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC

Express Mobile, Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against GoDaddy.com, LLC, a major web hosting and domain registration company known for its website-building tools. Express Mobile, a company founded by former IBM engineer Steven Rempell, asserts "foundational" patents related to web design and mobile technology and engages in patent monetization efforts, indicating its role as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE). The litigation centers on GoDaddy's website-building tools, specifically its Managed WordPress (MWP) and Website Builder (WSB) platforms, which Express Mobile alleges infringe its intellectual property.

The primary patent at issue, as listed, is U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755, which broadly describes systems and methods for displaying website information, integrating widgets, and programming, particularly for mobile devices, including generating and distributing platform-independent applications with a WYSIWYG authoring environment. Express Mobile originally asserted claims from the '755 patent family, along with patents from the '397 family (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168), against GoDaddy. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:19-cv-01937) before Judge Maryellen F. Kelleher. Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely due to the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which often restricts patent suits to a defendant's state of incorporation, a common choice for many businesses.

Procedurally, claims of the '755 family went to trial, resulting in a jury verdict of non-infringement against GoDaddy, which the district court upheld and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed on appeal (Case No. 23-2265). The case is notable for Express Mobile's pattern of asserting foundational web technology patents against major tech firms, having also sued entities like Facebook, Google, and Shopify, and for its interplay with PTAB proceedings. While the '755 family's non-infringement verdict was affirmed, a separate, more recent development saw a jury award Express Mobile $170 million against GoDaddy for infringement of the related '397 family patents after the Federal Circuit vacated an earlier summary judgment of non-infringement regarding those patents. This split outcome underscores the complexities of multi-patent litigation and has drawn attention as an example of patent risk management in the post-Halo era.

Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC has seen significant legal developments since its filing in 2019, culminating in a complex appellate and post-trial posture involving two separate jury trials.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2019)

• Complaint Filed: Express Mobile, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against GoDaddy.com, LLC on October 11, 2019, in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:19-cv-01937).
• Patents Asserted: The complaint initially alleged infringement of five patents belonging to two families: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168 (the '397 patent family, relating to website building systems), and U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755, 9,471,287, and 9,928,044 (the '755 patent family, relating to displaying website information and integrating widgets, especially on mobile devices).
• Accused Products: Express Mobile accused GoDaddy's Website Builder (WSB) and Managed WordPress (MWP) products of infringement.

2. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes (2021-2022)

• Markman Hearing: The court held a Markman hearing on April 8, 2021.
• First Claim Construction Order: On June 1, 2021, the District Court issued an order construing multiple disputed claim terms.
• Second Claim Construction Order: The court construed two more claim terms, "virtual machine" and "Player," in August 2022, as part of its summary judgment opinion.

3. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2021-2022)

• Summary Judgment Motions: On November 17, 2021, both parties filed combined summary judgment and Daubert motions.
• Summary Judgment Granted (for '397 family): Based on the court's construction of the term "runtime engine" in the '397 patent family (requiring it to "read information from the database"), the District Court granted GoDaddy's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for the '397 patent family on August 8, 2022.
• Motions to Strike: The court also addressed motions to strike expert declarations, finding GoDaddy's delayed disclosure of engineer declarations not substantially justified in an August 17, 2022, filing.

4. Trial Events, Verdict & Post-Trial Motions (2023-2026)

• First Jury Trial ('755 Family): A jury trial on the asserted claims of the '755 patent family took place from February 27, 2023, to March 3, 2023.
• Verdict ('755 Family): The jury found that GoDaddy did not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '755 patent family (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755, 9,471,287, and 9,928,044) but found the patents to be valid. No damages were awarded due to the non-infringement finding.
• Denial of Post-Trial Motions ('755 Family): Express Mobile's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial was denied by the District Court on July 5, 2023.
• Second Jury Trial ('397 Family): Following the Federal Circuit's remand, a second jury trial for the '397 and '168 patents occurred in early November 2025.
• Verdict ('397 Family): The jury found in favor of Express Mobile on infringement, willfulness, and validity, awarding Express Mobile $170 million in damages.
• Post-Trial Motions ('397 Family): GoDaddy filed renewed motions for JMOL and a new trial. Express Mobile moved for prejudgment interest, enhanced damages, and post-judgment interest.
• Rulings on Post-Trial Motions ('397 Family): On May 14, 2026, the District Court:
  • Granted GoDaddy's motion for JMOL regarding the willfulness finding.
  • Denied GoDaddy's motion for JMOL regarding infringement and its motion for a new trial.
  • Granted Express Mobile's motions for prejudgment and post-judgment interest.
  • Denied Express Mobile's motion for enhanced damages.

5. Appeal & Present Posture (2023-2025)

• Appeal to Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-2265): Express Mobile appealed the District Court's rulings concerning the first trial and the summary judgment to the Federal Circuit on August 3, 2023.
• Federal Circuit Decision: On April 2, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision:
  • It reversed the District Court's claim construction of "runtime engine" for the '397 patent family, vacating the summary judgment of non-infringement and remanding that portion of the case for further proceedings.
  • It affirmed the District Court's denial of Express Mobile's post-judgment motions (JMOL/new trial) regarding the jury's non-infringement verdict for the '755 patent family.
• Current Posture: Following the Federal Circuit's partial reversal and remand, the '397 patent family claims proceeded to a second trial. The May 14, 2026, District Court order on post-trial motions from the second trial indicates that the case is active, with potential for further appeals regarding the '397 family claims.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR on '397 Patent: Google LLC filed IPR2021-00700 against U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 (part of the '397 patent family) on March 31, 2021.
• PTAB Invalidity Decision & Director Review: A PTAB decision related to an Express Mobile patent, which led to a $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy (matching the second trial's damages amount), was criticized by USPTO Director John Squires for not adequately explaining why it reached a different conclusion than the district court. Squires ordered the matter reconsidered, suggesting a PTAB invalidation of a patent relevant to the recent '397 family trial. This indicates that the validity of at least one of the '397 family patents has been challenged at the PTAB and is undergoing review, potentially impacting the finality of the second jury verdict.

Express Mobile, Inc. is represented by the following counsel of record in Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, 1:19-cv-01937 (D. Del.):

• James Richard Nuttall

  • Role: Lead Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: A nationally recognized first-chair patent trial lawyer, he co-chairs Steptoe's Intellectual Property group and led the team that secured a $170 million jury verdict for Express Mobile against GoDaddy in November 2025, and a $40 million verdict against Shopify in September 2022.

• John L. Abramic

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Chair of Steptoe's Intellectual Property group and a veteran advocate in complex intellectual property disputes, he was part of the trial team for Express Mobile against GoDaddy and Shopify.

• Robert F. Kappers

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Served on the trial team for Express Mobile in the GoDaddy and Shopify patent infringement cases.

• Katherine H. Tellez (also referred to as Kate Tellez)

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: A trusted trial lawyer known for her efficiency and cross-examinations in high-stakes patent infringement matters, she was part of the trial team for Express Mobile against GoDaddy and Shopify.

• Christopher A. Suarez

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Washington, DC (though listed as pro hac vice from Chicago, IL in district court filings)
  • Experience Note: Was part of the Steptoe trial team representing Express Mobile against GoDaddy and Shopify, and also involved in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

• Candice Jaesun Kwark

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Represented Express Mobile as counsel on appeal to the Federal Circuit and was part of the Steptoe team for the District Court trial against GoDaddy.

• Michael Dockterman

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Served as part of the Steptoe trial team for Express Mobile against GoDaddy and Shopify.

• Tron Y. Fu

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, (office location not explicitly stated in results, but listed as pro hac vice from Chicago, IL with other Steptoe attorneys)
  • Experience Note: Served as an associate on the Steptoe team that secured a $40 million win for Express Mobile against Shopify.

• Timothy Devlin

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Regularly appears as local counsel in patent litigation in the District of Delaware.

• Daniel F. Gelwicks

  • Role: Attorney (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL (implied by association with other Steptoe attorneys and pro hac vice status)
  • Experience Note: Listed as pro hac vice counsel for Express Mobile in the District of Delaware case.

I'll research GoDaddy's counsel of record in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and any changes in defense counsel over time.

Let me check the most recent docket entries and the 2026 opinion's counsel listing.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — GoDaddy.com, LLC

Bottom line: GoDaddy has been represented throughout this case by a single firm — Ballard Spahr LLP — with a Wilmington, Delaware team acting as local/lead Delaware counsel and a Phoenix, Arizona team (plus a smaller Atlanta contingent) acting as trial counsel. I found no evidence of any other firm appearing for GoDaddy, and no evidence that GoDaddy changed counsel between the 2019 complaint and the 2026 post-trial proceedings. No GoDaddy in-house attorney appears on the docket as counsel of record.

---

Ballard Spahr LLP — counsel for Defendant GoDaddy.com, LLC

Delaware / local counsel (Wilmington, DE — 919 N. Market St., 11th Floor)

Trial / "of counsel" team (Phoenix, AZ — 1 East Washington St., Suite 2300)

Additional Ballard Spahr attorney crediting the case (unconfirmed appearance)

Catch-all service address: Ballard Spahr maintained a client-specific service mailbox for this matter, GoDaddyBallard@ballardspahr.com, plus a paralegal address (CeuninckK@ballardspahr.com) on the November 2021 notice of service.

---

Sources and docket grounding

• D.I. 6 & 7 (Dec. 2019): motions for pro hac vice appearance of Brian W. LaCorte and Jonathon A. Talcott — the first defense-side appearances.
• D.I. 121, Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 19-1937-RGA, 2021 WL 2209868 (D. Del. June 1, 2021) (claim construction order, filed under seal at No. 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH) — counsel block: "Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Brittany Giusini, Brian S.S. Auerbach, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian W. LaCorte, Jonathan A. Talcott, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Attorneys for Defendant."
• D.I. 152/154 (Nov. 8, 2021, Notice of Service of Plaintiff's Disclosure of Election of Asserted Claims) — full Ballard Spahr service list (Wilmington, Phoenix, Atlanta).
• D.I. 327 (Mar. 3, 2023 jury instructions) and D.I. 341, 680 F. Supp. 3d 517 (D. Del. July 5, 2023) — the '755 trial and post-trial opinion; GoDaddy argued by its Ballard Spahr team, including the closing argument challenge Express Mobile raised in that opinion.
• Fed. Cir. No. 23-2265, Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Apr. 2, 2025) (nonprecedential, PDF) — GoDaddy as appellee; the appeal summary lists Ballard Spahr among firms for the parties.
• IP Law Daily, "PATENT—D. Del.: $170M infringement verdict against GoDaddy upheld in website-building patent case" (May 20, 2026), reporting Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH (D. Del. May 14, 2026): "Attorneys: Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC) for Express Mobile, Inc. Beth Moskow-Schnoll (Ballard Spahr LLP) for GoDaddy.com, LLC."
• Ballard Spahr firm bio for Brian W. LaCorte (ballardspahr.com) — confirms his role as GoDaddy's lead trial counsel and the complete defense verdict.

---

Flags and limitations

1. Only one defense firm. Every filing, opinion, and press item I found identifies Ballard Spahr as GoDaddy's counsel. The Federal Circuit appellee briefing and the PTAB proceedings against the patents (Google's IPR2021-00700, Facebook's IPR2021-01226, etc.) are separate matters in which GoDaddy is not the petitioner; no GoDaddy-side appellate or PTAB specialist firm surfaced. If a separate appellate team was retained for any 2026 appeal of the '397 verdict, it does not appear in the materials I could retrieve.
2. Unverified entries. Andrew Michael Hensley and Shaton C. Menzie appear on the November 2021 service list but I could not confirm pro hac vice admission for them. Lawrence K. Nodine's connection rests on his own CV/WIPO profile, not a docket entry. I have not listed anyone I could not source.
3. Sealed material. Portions of the summary judgment and claim construction record (e.g., the '397 "Category 3 RTE" briefing, D.I. 266) were filed with redactions, and some pretrial materials in the 2025 '397 trial were filed under seal. It is possible that additional Ballard Spahr attorneys (or a trial-support firm) appeared in sealed filings without a publicly visible signature block.
4. In-house counsel. No GoDaddy in-house attorney is identified as counsel of record on the docket. GoDaddy engineers Aaron Silvas and Franklin Jarrett testified at trial, but that is witness, not counsel, participation.
5. Metadata note (not a contradiction with the record, but a scope point). The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 as "patents at issue." The docket shows five asserted patents across two families ('397/'168 and '755/'287/'044), and the defense team above handled both the 2023 '755 trial and the 2025–26 '397 phase. The docket also shows the case moving from Judge Richard G. Andrews (‑RGA) to Judge Maryellen F. Kelleher with Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall (‑MFK‑JLH).
6. Firm-name note. Ballard Spahr LLP was the firm name in all filings through this period (the firm announced a combination with another firm effective in 2025), so later filings may carry a successor-entity name; I have used Ballard Spahr as it appears in the record.