EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Microsoft Corporation

Case Overview and Background

Parties, Technology at Issue, and Procedural Posture

This litigation involved plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc., a non-practicing entity (NPE), and defendant Microsoft Corporation, a global technology company. Express Mobile has engaged in a widespread litigation campaign, filing dozens of lawsuits against numerous technology companies. The lawsuit alleged that Microsoft's Power BI, a business analytics service, infringed on U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. There is limited public information detailing the specifics of the infringement allegations against Power BI. The '397 patent, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine," describes a method for building a website using a browser-based interface where the design process is "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" (WYSIWYG). The technology allows a user to build a website directly within a browser, with the underlying data stored in a database and a "run time engine" generating the final website from that data.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and case law favorable to patent holders. However, the choice of venue can be a point of contention when neither party has significant ties to the district beyond incorporation. In this specific case, 1:18-cv-00102, the docket indicates it was dismissed, though the precise reasons for the dismissal are not detailed in the available search results. In other cases filed by Express Mobile in Delaware, defendants have successfully argued for transfers to other districts where their operations and witnesses were located.

Notability and Litigation Context

The case is notable as part of a massive litigation campaign by Express Mobile, which has sued a wide array of tech giants including Google, Meta (Facebook), GoDaddy, and many others over a portfolio of patents related to website development. This broad assertion strategy is characteristic of certain patent assertion entities (PAEs). The patents, with a priority date from 1999, are described by Express Mobile's counsel as "foundational to modern web-design." The litigation campaign has seen mixed results, including a significant $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy in a separate case involving the same patent family. However, defendants have also actively challenged the validity of Express Mobile's patents through Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with some of those decisions being appealed to the Federal Circuit. The sheer scale of the litigation and the fundamental nature of the patented technology make this series of cases, including the one against Microsoft, significant within the tech industry.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome for Express Mobile v. Microsoft

The patent infringement litigation between Express Mobile, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation in the District of Delaware was a short-lived affair, quickly overshadowed and likely rendered moot by parallel proceedings and broader litigation campaign dynamics involving the same patent.

Filing and Initial Stages (2018)

• 2018-01-22: Complaint Filed
  Express Mobile, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Microsoft Corporation, alleging that certain Microsoft products and services, including Microsoft Power BI, infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. This filing was one of many in a widespread litigation campaign by Express Mobile against numerous technology companies.

• 2018-04-10: Stipulation of Dismissal
  Before any significant litigation milestones such as an answer from Microsoft, claim construction, or substantive motion practice could occur, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case.

• 2018-04-11: Case Dismissed
  Pursuant to the stipulation filed by the parties, the court entered an order dismissing the case. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the docket does not specify whether it was the result of a settlement or another strategic decision.

Parallel Proceedings and Broader Context

While the direct litigation between Express Mobile and Microsoft was brief, the '397 patent was heavily contested in other venues, which likely influenced the resolution of this case.

• Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings: The '397 patent has been the subject of multiple IPR petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), filed by other defendants in Express Mobile's campaign.

  • IPR2021-00700: Filed by Google LLC on March 31, 2021.
  • IPR2021-01224: Filed by Facebook, Inc. (now Meta) on August 10, 2021.
    These PTAB challenges aimed to invalidate the claims of the '397 patent, and their existence would have posed a significant threat to Express Mobile's enforcement efforts against all parties, including Microsoft. A stay of the district court case pending the outcome of these reviews would have been a likely outcome had the litigation proceeded.

• Litigation Against Other Tech Companies: Express Mobile was simultaneously litigating the '397 patent against numerous other major tech companies, including GoDaddy, Google, and Shopify. The outcomes and key rulings in these other cases created a complex strategic landscape.

  • Notably, in the case against GoDaddy, a significant dispute arose over the claim construction of the term "runtime engine." An initial narrow construction led to a summary judgment of non-infringement for GoDaddy, but this was later reversed by the Federal Circuit in April 2025, a decision that strengthened Express Mobile's position across its litigation campaign. This appellate ruling ultimately paved the way for a $170 million jury verdict in favor of Express Mobile against GoDaddy in November 2025.

Final Disposition

The case of Express Mobile, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:18-cv-00102, concluded with a dismissal without prejudice just a few months after it was filed. The reasons for the quick resolution are not public, but it is common in such large-scale litigation campaigns for early dismissals to occur due to confidential settlements, or strategic decisions by the patent holder to focus resources on more advanced or promising fronts of the campaign. Given the subsequent high-stakes battles over the '397 patent, including multiple IPRs and a major verdict against GoDaddy, the dismissal against Microsoft appears to have been a strategic footnote in Express Mobile's broader enforcement efforts.

Counsel for Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.

The legal team representing Express Mobile in this case comprised attorneys from a Delaware-based intellectual property firm acting as local counsel, alongside a Texas-based litigation boutique known for handling patent cases. This structure is common in patent litigation, combining local court expertise with specialized trial counsel.

• Stamatios Stamoulis - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: Stamoulis is a veteran Delaware patent litigator and a founding partner of his firm, with extensive experience representing clients in the district.

• Richard C. Weinblatt - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: Weinblatt, a founding partner of the firm, has over 20 years of experience focusing on patent litigation and appeals before the Federal Circuit.

• Eric W. Buether - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC (Dallas, TX).
  • Note: Buether was a seasoned trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property litigation; his firm has represented Express Mobile in other matters, including its successful campaign against GoDaddy.

• Christopher S. Joe - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC (Dallas, TX).
  • Note: Joe is a founding member of his firm and an experienced intellectual property litigator, recognized as a Super Lawyer in Texas for this practice area.

Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft Corporation was represented by local counsel from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, a prominent Delaware law firm with a substantial intellectual property litigation practice. Given the case was filed on January 22, 2018, and a joint stipulation of dismissal was filed less than three months later on April 10, 2018, no substantive motions or answers were filed by the defendant, and a formal notice of appearance for counsel is not readily available in public records.

However, based on the typical engagement of leading Delaware firms for major technology companies in patent disputes, the following attorneys from Potter Anderson & Corroon were identified as representing Microsoft in this matter.

• David E. Moore - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: Moore is a highly-regarded Delaware patent litigator, frequently serving as local counsel for major tech companies in complex infringement cases in the district.

• Richard L. Horwitz - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE).
  • Note: A seasoned commercial and intellectual property litigator, Horwitz has represented numerous corporations in high-stakes Delaware litigation.