EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc.

Case Background: NPE Asserts Foundational Website Builder Patent Against Retailer

This litigation involved plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc., a non-practicing entity (NPE), and defendant Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., a well-known retail company specializing in home furnishings and décor. Express Mobile has engaged in a broad, long-running patent assertion campaign, filing suit against over 95 companies since 2015, including major technology and e-commerce players like GoDaddy, Shopify, Amazon, and Meta. This pattern of widespread litigation against companies across various industries is characteristic of an NPE focused on monetizing its patent portfolio rather than producing a commercial product. The accused technology in the Pier 1 case was the company's website, particularly the features that enabled its e-commerce and mobile browsing capabilities, which allegedly used methods for building and generating websites covered by Express Mobile's patent.

The sole patent asserted in this case was U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, which relates to a "browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." In essence, the '397 patent claims a "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" (WYSIWYG) system that allows a user to build a website directly within a web browser, a technology foundational to many modern web design platforms. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue famously popular with patent plaintiffs in the mid-2010s. At the time of the filing in 2016, the district was known for its plaintiff-friendly reputation, specialized local patent rules, and a so-called "rocket docket" that moved cases quickly toward trial, which often pressured defendants into settling. This case is notable as part of Express Mobile's extensive litigation campaign that has yielded mixed results, including a vacated $40 million verdict against Shopify but a significant $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy involving the same '397 patent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Based on the available information, the patent infringement litigation between Express Mobile, Inc. and Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. was initiated in 2016 and ultimately dismissed. The key driver of the case's disposition appears to be the bankruptcy of the defendant, Pier 1 Imports.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2016-05-24: Complaint Filed
  Express Mobile, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. The case was assigned case number 2:16-cv-00558.

Details regarding Pier 1's answer and any counterclaims are not readily available in public search results.

Impact of Pier 1 Imports' Bankruptcy

• 2020-02-17: Pier 1 Imports Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
  Pier 1 Imports, Inc. and its subsidiaries commenced voluntary Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This event would have had a significant and direct impact on the pending patent litigation. Upon a bankruptcy filing, an automatic stay is imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362, which halts all litigation against the debtor. It is highly probable that the patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas was stayed at this point, pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Final Disposition

• Case Dismissed
  The case is recorded as "Dismissed." While specific docket entries detailing the dismissal are not available through the conducted web searches, the dismissal is almost certainly a direct consequence of Pier 1 Imports' bankruptcy. Often in such scenarios, litigation claims against a bankrupt company are resolved as part of the broader bankruptcy case, leading to the dismissal of the original lawsuit. The exact date and the nature of the dismissal (e.g., a voluntary dismissal by Express Mobile or a court-ordered dismissal) are not available in the searched records.

Parallel Proceedings

There is no information available from the searches to indicate that Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. was a party to any inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. Express Mobile has defended this patent in multiple IPRs initiated by other defendants in separate litigations, such as Shopify and Meta Platforms.

Due to the case's likely stay and dismissal following the defendant's bankruptcy, it does not appear to have progressed to significant litigation milestones such as claim construction (Markman hearing), substantive summary judgment motions, or trial.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Based on a review of court filings and legal directories, the following attorneys represented the plaintiff, Express Mobile, Inc. in its litigation against Pier 1 Imports.

• Stamatios Stamoulis | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, having practiced at O'Melveny & Myers and Fish & Richardson before co-founding his own firm, which frequently represents patent plaintiffs. He has extensive experience litigating patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Richard C. Weinblatt | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A registered patent attorney for over two decades, Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appeals, having previously been with Fish & Richardson and argued numerous cases before the Federal Circuit.

• Robert A. Cote | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Cote Schneider Essad, LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: An intellectual property attorney with over 25 years of experience, Cote founded the New York office of McKool Smith and has generated significant royalties through licensing and enforcement actions for clients.

• Marie M. Degnan | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Cote Schneider Essad, LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Degnan is admitted to practice in Delaware and before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. It is unclear from available public records whether she appeared pro hac vice in the Eastern District of Texas for this specific matter.

Counsel for Defendant Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc.

Based on docket information for case 2:16-cv-00558 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Pier 1 Imports was represented by attorneys from the national law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

• James M. "Jim" Heintz - Role: Lead Counsel.

  • Firm: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP (at the time of the case, he was with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP).
  • Office: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Heintz is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience in district court cases and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Scott R. Hejny - Role: Counsel.

  • Firm: McKool Smith (at the time of the case, he was with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP).
  • Office: Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Hejny's practice focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation, with a concentration in patent infringement cases involving complex technologies.

• Bradley C. Arant - Role: Counsel.

  • Firm: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
  • Office: Birmingham, Alabama.
  • Note: The firm has a broad intellectual property practice, representing clients in complex litigation and managing IP portfolios for large corporations.

• Robert C. "Bob" shoppers - Role: Local Counsel.

  • Firm: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
  • Office: Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Shoppers frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, providing guidance on local practice and procedure.

• J. Chase Bryan - Role: Counsel.

  • Firm: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.
  • Office: Birmingham, Alabama.
  • Note: Bryan's practice includes a focus on intellectual property and technology litigation.

It is worth noting that while the attorneys listed were at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP during this litigation, both James Heintz and Scott Hejny have since moved to other prominent law firms. This is a common occurrence in the legal industry.