EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This litigation represents a single engagement in a much broader, multi-year patent assertion campaign by Express Mobile, Inc. against numerous technology companies. The plaintiff, Express Mobile, describes itself as a pioneer in mobile and web development technology, founded by inventor Steven H. Rempell. However, its primary activity appears to be patent licensing and enforcement, a characteristic of a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The defendant, Salesforce.com, Inc. (now Salesforce, Inc.), is a major American cloud-based software company, best known for its customer relationship management (CRM) platform and a suite of enterprise software solutions for sales, service, and marketing.

The dispute centered on allegations that Salesforce's platform, particularly its tools for creating web pages and mobile applications, infringed on Express Mobile's intellectual property. The specific patent asserted in this Delaware case was U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. The '397 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 designing and building a web page within a browser using a build engine and a database. Express Mobile's infringement contentions targeted Salesforce's services that allow users to build and deploy web and mobile interfaces, alleging they operate in a manner described by the patent.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular and influential venue for patent litigation due to its judges' expertise in handling complex patent cases and a body of case law perceived as favorable to patent holders. The case was assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark, a highly experienced patent judge who has since been elevated to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This litigation is notable as part of Express Mobile's expansive campaign, which has targeted over 95 defendants since 2015, including major tech players like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. The campaign has seen mixed results, including a jury verdict against GoDaddy that was later overturned, and another against Shopify that was also set aside, highlighting the contentious nature of the asserted patents and the high stakes for the website development industry. This specific action against Salesforce was one of many similar suits filed by Express Mobile in Delaware around the same time frame.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The litigation between Express Mobile and Salesforce in the District of Delaware was short-lived and concluded without any substantive rulings on the merits of the infringement claim, a common outcome for cases within Express Mobile's broader enforcement campaign that were impacted by parallel administrative challenges to the patent's validity.

Here is a chronological summary of the key developments:

• 2017-06-12: Complaint Filed
  Express Mobile, Inc. filed its complaint against Salesforce.com, Inc. (now Salesforce, Inc.), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. The complaint was one of many similar suits filed by Express Mobile against various technology companies in Delaware around the same time.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings
  Shortly after this and other cases were filed, the '397 patent became the subject of multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While public records do not indicate that Salesforce filed its own IPR against the '397 patent, other defendants in the campaign did. For instance, BigCommerce, Inc. filed an IPR petition (IPR2018-00750) in March 2018. The existence of these parallel validity challenges was a critical factor for nearly all of Express Mobile's district court cases.

• Probable Stay Pending IPR
  Although a specific stay order for this case is not available in public search results, the common procedure in the District of Delaware is to stay litigation pending the outcome of an instituted IPR. Given the multiple IPRs filed against the '397 patent by other defendants, it is highly probable that the Salesforce case was stayed to await the PTAB's decisions on the patent's validity. This would conserve court and party resources, as a PTAB finding of unpatentability could render the district court case moot.

• 2019-02-28: Case Terminated
  The case was formally terminated on February 28, 2019. This is confirmed by a litigation history exhibit filed in a related proceeding before the PTAB. The precise reason for the termination—such as a confidential settlement or a joint stipulation to dismiss without prejudice—is not detailed in available public records. However, dismissals of this nature are typical in scenarios where parallel IPRs are proceeding, as parties may choose to resolve the matter privately rather than wait for a final validity decision that could impact their legal positions.

Final Disposition: Dismissed

The case was dismissed on February 28, 2019, approximately 20 months after it was filed. It did not proceed to claim construction (Markman hearing), summary judgment, or trial. The dismissal appears to be a strategic outcome influenced by the numerous, concurrent IPR challenges filed by other technology companies against the '397 patent. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed a PTAB decision finding some claims of the '397 patent unpatentable in a related case, a development that likely vindicated the defensive strategy of defendants like Salesforce.

Based on docket information and public records, the counsel of record for plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. were from the law firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. This firm is frequently recognized as a go-to firm for patent litigation plaintiffs in Delaware.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously practiced at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C. before co-founding his current firm. He was named one of the most active attorneys for plaintiffs in patent cases in the first half of 2018.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt focuses his practice on patent litigation and appellate work, having previously been an attorney at Fish & Richardson, P.C. He has been recognized as a top plaintiff attorney by the number of new patent cases filed.

Based on available information from web search, the specific attorneys who represented Salesforce.com, Inc. in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00703 (D. Del.) cannot be definitively identified.

Publicly accessible legal research platforms and web search results do not contain the docket sheet or notices of appearance that would list the counsel of record for the defendant. Court filings for this case, which would contain this information, appear to be behind a PACER paywall and have not been indexed by free public sources.

While Delaware patent litigation cases frequently involve local counsel from prominent Delaware firms, and Salesforce has been represented by firms like Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton in other patent matters, it is not possible to confirm their role or the names of the specific attorneys in this case without access to the official court docket.