EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit was part of a widespread litigation campaign by Express Mobile, Inc., a patent assertion entity (PAE), against numerous technology and e-commerce companies. Express Mobile, founded by inventor Steven H. Rempell, holds patents related to mobile and desktop website generation technology. The defendant, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., is a major American home improvement retailer and an operating company that, like most modern retailers, relies heavily on its e-commerce platform and mobile application to engage with and sell to customers. The lawsuit alleged that Home Depot's mobile website and native mobile application, which serve as a digital "front door" to the company's stores and generated substantial e-commerce revenue, infringed Express Mobile's patented technology.

The case was centered on U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." This patent generally covers a system and method for creating and generating websites using a browser-based tool that separates website content and style data, allowing for dynamic website creation. Express Mobile's infringement contention against Home Depot targeted the underlying technology that powers Home Depot's customer-facing digital properties, which allow users to browse products, make purchases, and manage projects. Such functionality is central to modern e-commerce and is a common feature among the dozens of companies Express Mobile has sued.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the case was situated in a premier venue for patent litigation, known for its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law in complex patent matters. The court's expertise makes it a favored jurisdiction for both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes intellectual property disputes. This case is notable as one front in a sprawling, multi-year enforcement campaign by Express Mobile that has targeted a wide array of major technology companies and has seen mixed results, including a significant jury verdict against GoDaddy involving the same patent family, and other less successful outcomes. The broad assertion of these foundational web technology patents against a large swath of the e-commerce industry highlights the significant role that non-practicing entities continue to play in the patent litigation landscape.

Legal Developments & Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Express Mobile, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in the District of Delaware was one of many similar lawsuits filed by Express Mobile against a wide range of companies. The case was ultimately resolved before any substantive rulings on infringement or validity were made by the court.

Key chronological developments in this and related parallel proceedings include:

• 2018-08-01: Complaint Filed
  Express Mobile, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., alleging that Home Depot's mobile website and applications infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. This filing was part of a broader litigation campaign that began as early as 2015 and has involved over 95 defendants.

• 2018-10-12: Answer and Counterclaims
  Home Depot filed its Answer to the complaint, denying the allegations of infringement and asserting various affirmative defenses. Concurrently, Home Depot filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe the '397 patent and that the patent was invalid for failing to meet the requirements of U.S. patent law.

• 2019-07-31: Stipulation of Dismissal
  The parties filed a joint Stipulation of Dismissal. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Express Mobile dismissed its claims with prejudice, and Home Depot dismissed its counterclaims with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. The filing of a dismissal with prejudice means the same claim cannot be re-filed. This type of dismissal often, but not always, indicates that a settlement was reached between the parties, though the terms of any such agreement were not made public in the court record.

• 2019-08-01: Case Closed
  Following the joint stipulation, the Clerk of the Court officially closed the case.

Parallel Proceedings and Broader Litigation Context

While the specific case against Home Depot was resolved relatively quickly and quietly, the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, has been the subject of significant parallel litigation, including proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and high-stakes trials against other defendants.

• PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR): The '397 patent has been challenged at the PTAB. Notably, on March 31, 2021, Google LLC filed a petition for an inter partes review (IPR2021-00700) against the '397 patent. These IPR proceedings challenge the validity of a patent's claims based on prior art. An IPR certificate for the '397 patent was issued on June 24, 2025, indicating that the PTAB process concluded and likely resulted in changes to the patent's claims, although the specific outcome of IPR2021-00700 is not detailed in the available search results. The existence of PTAB challenges, brought by other defendants in the broader campaign, often influences litigation strategy, and can lead to stays or settlements in co-pending district court cases.

• Litigation Against GoDaddy: In a separate case involving the same patent, Express Mobile secured a significant victory. On November 6, 2025, a Delaware jury returned a $170 million verdict finding that GoDaddy.com LLC had infringed both the '397 patent and its related U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168. This case had a lengthy history, including a prior grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for GoDaddy that was appealed and reversed by the Federal Circuit in April 2025, leading to the eventual jury trial. The substantial verdict highlights the perceived value and potential threat of the patents asserted in the broader campaign.

The dismissal of the Home Depot case in 2019, well before the major developments in the GoDaddy litigation and the filing of the Google IPR, suggests a resolution based on the specific circumstances and risk calculations of the parties at that time.

Counsel for Plaintiff EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.

Review of the court docket for Express Mobile, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1:18-cv-01168 (D. Del.), reveals that the plaintiff was represented by a combination of Delaware-based local counsel and out-of-state counsel specializing in intellectual property litigation.

• Stamatios Stamoulis | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis is a veteran Delaware patent litigator who has represented clients in hundreds of patent cases in that district and others, often on behalf of patent owners.

• Richard C. Weinblatt | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt's practice is focused on patent litigation and appellate work before the Federal Circuit, where he has successfully argued for the reversal of district court decisions.

• Seth L. Eichenholtz | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Berkeley Law & Technology Group, LLP (formerly Austin, TX; firm now operates from Portland, OR)
  • Note: During his time in private practice, Mr. Eichenholtz was involved in intellectual property matters; he was later appointed a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York in July 2025.

Counsel for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Based on a review of the docket in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1:18-cv-01168 (D. Del.), the defendant, Home Depot, was represented by attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP serving as lead counsel and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP as local Delaware counsel.

• Robert C. Kappers | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta, GA) at the time of the case; now a partner at Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Chicago, IL).
  • Note: Mr. Kappers is a prominent IP trial lawyer who has handled complex patent litigation for major companies and, in an interesting turn, later represented Express Mobile in other matters, securing a $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy and a $40 million verdict against Shopify.

• Michael E. Crawford | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta, GA) at the time of the case.
  • Note: Mr. Crawford is an experienced patent litigator with a focus on representing clients in the software and high-tech industries.

• A. Martina Hufnal | Local Counsel

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE) at the time of the case; now a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C. (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: Ms. Hufnal has extensive experience as Delaware counsel in patent cases, with a particular focus on litigation in the pharmaceutical, chemical, and software fields.