EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. International Business Machines Corporation

This litigation represents a single front in a broad, multi-year patent assertion campaign by Express Mobile, Inc. against numerous major technology companies. The plaintiff, Express Mobile, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) engaged in monetizing a portfolio of patents developed by its founder, Steven H. Rempell. The defendant, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), is a multinational operating company and one of the world's largest technology firms, offering a vast array of software, hardware, and consulting services. The lawsuit accused IBM's web development and e-commerce platform technologies of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. This patent, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine," generally covers a "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" (WYSIWYG) method for building a website within a web browser.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a key venue for patent litigation. Following the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland, which restricted patent venue to a defendant's state of incorporation or where it has a regular and established place of business, Delaware's importance grew as many U.S. companies, including IBM, are incorporated there. The court is well-regarded for its experienced judiciary in handling complex patent disputes. Although this specific case against IBM was dismissed, it is notable as part of Express Mobile's larger assertion strategy. The company has filed similar suits against GoDaddy, Shopify, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, among others, based on a family of patents related to foundational web and mobile development technologies.

The patents asserted by Express Mobile, including the '397 patent, have faced challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). An inter partes review (IPR) petition against the '397 patent by BigCommerce was denied institution in 2018. However, in separate proceedings related to litigation against other companies like Shopify, some claims of the '397 patent have been found unpatentable. The broader campaign has led to mixed but significant results for Express Mobile, including a $40 million verdict against Shopify (which was later subject to appeal and post-trial motions) and a substantial verdict against GoDaddy after a successful appeal, highlighting the perceived value and threat of this patent portfolio to the web services industry.

Key Legal Developments in Express Mobile v. IBM

Initial Pleadings and Allegations:

On June 12, 2017, Express Mobile, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that IBM's MobileFirst platform and related software development tools infringed on U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." Express Mobile sought damages and a permanent injunction.

The '397 patent, issued in 2003, generally relates to methods for building a website using a browser-based interface where the design process is "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG).

Case Dismissal:

The case was ultimately dismissed. While specific details regarding the dismissal are not readily available in the public record, the court docket indicates a final disposition of dismissal. The reasons for the dismissal, such as a settlement between the parties or a successful motion by IBM, are not specified in the currently available information.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

It is important to note that while not directly involving IBM in this specific case, Express Mobile has been an active plaintiff in patent litigation, asserting its patents against numerous other technology companies. In several of these parallel litigations, the asserted patents have been the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For instance, in 2021, Google LLC filed IPR petitions against other Express Mobile patents. While there is no direct evidence that an IPR on the '397 patent was the reason for the dismissal against IBM, the existence of such parallel proceedings against other Express Mobile patents suggests a broader strategy by defendants to challenge the validity of Express Mobile's patent portfolio.

Due to the limited publicly available information on this specific case, a detailed chronological breakdown of pre-trial motions, claim construction, and discovery milestones is not possible. The case's dismissal early in the litigation lifecycle is the most significant and determinative event.

Counsel for Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.

Based on a review of available dockets and legal analytics, the following attorneys appeared on behalf of plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. in its case against IBM. The legal team comprised attorneys from both Delaware and California, a common practice in patent cases filed in Delaware to combine specialized patent litigation experience with local court expertise.

Local Counsel

• Name: Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis is a veteran Delaware patent litigator with over two decades of experience, having previously practiced at Fish & Richardson and O'Melveny & Myers before co-founding his own firm, which frequently represents patent holders in infringement litigation.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work before the Federal Circuit, and has been recognized as a top attorney for appeals court cases.

Additional Counsel

• Name: Dorian S. Berger

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills, CA)
  • Note: Mr. Berger is an experienced intellectual property litigator, representing clients in federal courts nationwide, and has been repeatedly recognized as a "Super Lawyer" in Southern California.

• Name: Daniel M. O'Brien

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Beltran & O'Brien (likely California, though less public information is available)
  • Note: Mr. O'Brien's specific experience is not as widely documented in public sources, but he was listed on the initial complaint.

• Name: Seth L. Eichenholtz

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Unknown (admitted pro hac vice from New York)
  • Note: Mr. Eichenholtz's affiliation at the time of the filing is not clearly specified in the available docket information.

Counsel for Defendant International Business Machines Corp.

Based on a review of the court docket, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was represented by attorneys from Desmarais LLP as lead counsel and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as Delaware local counsel.

A "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice" filed on September 25, 2017 (D.I. 8) identifies the specific attorneys representing the defendant.

Lead Counsel

• John M. Desmarais (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Mr. Desmarais is the founding partner of the intellectual property litigation boutique Desmarais LLP and has served as lead counsel for IBM in numerous high-stakes patent disputes, including a widely covered $82.5 million jury verdict against Groupon.

• Ameet A. Modi

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Mr. Modi is a partner at the firm with experience in complex technology cases, though specific past case details are not prominently available in public sources.

• Karman L. Lee

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Ms. Lee is an attorney at the firm, and while her specific litigation history is not as widely publicized, her involvement in this case indicates experience in the firm's core patent litigation practice.

Local Counsel

• Jack B. Blumenfeld (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A highly-regarded veteran of the Delaware patent bar, Mr. Blumenfeld has served as Delaware counsel for major technology and pharmaceutical companies in a vast number of patent cases, including for clients like Google, Intel, and Pfizer.

• Stephen J. Kraftschik (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (at the time of filing); now a Shareholder at Polsinelli PC (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: Mr. Kraftschik has extensive experience serving as Delaware counsel in patent litigation and other complex commercial disputes in the District of Delaware.