EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Squarespace, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This litigation was a part of a large-scale patent assertion campaign by Express Mobile, Inc., a patent holding company, against numerous major technology and e-commerce firms. Express Mobile, founded by inventor Steven H. Rempell, holds a portfolio of patents related to early web and mobile development technologies. The defendant, Squarespace, Inc., is a well-known public company that provides a popular software-as-a-service platform for website building and hosting, primarily for small businesses and creative professionals. The lawsuit alleged that Squarespace's core offering—its browser-based, "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) website editor—infringed on Express Mobile's intellectual property. This placed the litigation at the heart of the modern, no-code/low-code web development industry.

The central patent in this case was U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." The patent, with a priority date in the late 1999, generally describes a method for building a website directly within a web browser, where user selections are stored in a database and a "run time engine" uses that data to generate the final website. Express Mobile alleged that Squarespace's platform, which allows users to drag-and-drop elements to build a site, operated in this manner. The case was initially filed in the Northern District of California but was transferred to the District of Delaware (Case 1:20-cv-01163), a popular venue for patent litigation, where it was assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. This transfer consolidated the case with many of Express Mobile's other lawsuits against companies like Google, Facebook, and Shopify, streamlining discovery and legal proceedings for the plaintiff.

The case is notable as an example of a broad patent assertion campaign by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against a wide swath of the technology industry, targeting foundational aspects of modern web services. It also highlights the crucial role of parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While Squarespace did not file its own inter partes review (IPR), it was named as a real party-in-interest in IPRs filed by co-defendants like Facebook. This coordinated defensive strategy created significant pressure on Express Mobile, as the validity of the asserted '397 patent was under serious threat. The high likelihood of patent claims being invalidated in IPR proceedings often incentivizes patent holders to settle district court litigation. The eventual settlement and dismissal followed this pattern, resolving the dispute before a costly trial and before the PTAB could issue a final decision that might have invalidated the patent entirely.

Here are the key legal developments and the ultimate outcome of the patent infringement litigation between Express Mobile, Inc. and Squarespace, Inc.

Case Summary

Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. ("Express Mobile") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Squarespace, Inc. ("Squarespace") on June 14, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit was part of a broader litigation campaign by Express Mobile, asserting patents related to website creation technology against numerous technology companies. The case was subsequently transferred to the District of Delaware. After motion practice that narrowed the claims, the parties confidentially settled, and the case was dismissed.

Chronological Developments

2019-06-14: Initial Complaint
Express Mobile filed its original complaint in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-03350), accusing Squarespace's website building tools of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." The complaint alleged that Squarespace's platform, which allows users to create websites through a browser-based interface, utilized Express Mobile's patented methods for storing user-selected website elements in a database and retrieving that information to generate the final website.

2020-09-01: Transfer to District of Delaware
Following a likely motion to transfer or by stipulation of the parties (the specific docket entry is not publicly available), the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and assigned a new case number: 1:20-cv-01163. This transfer consolidated the case in a venue where other Express Mobile patent lawsuits were also pending.

2020-10-23: Motion to Dismiss
Squarespace filed a motion to dismiss Express Mobile's complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (D. Del. Case No. 1:20-cv-01163, D.I. 9). Squarespace argued that Express Mobile's complaint failed to provide sufficient detail on how Squarespace's products infringed the patent. Specifically, it challenged the sufficiency of the allegations for indirect infringement (induced and contributory) and willful infringement.

2021-08-25: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews issued a Memorandum Opinion partially granting and partially denying Squarespace's motion to dismiss.

• Granted-in-part: The court dismissed Express Mobile's claims for induced, contributory, and willful infringement, finding the complaint lacked the requisite factual allegations to support these claims.
• Denied-in-part: The court allowed the claims for direct infringement and divided infringement to proceed. Judge Andrews determined that Express Mobile's allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage and that Squarespace was "prematurely seeking detailed infringement contentions."

2022-06-28: Stipulation of Dismissal
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. (A specific docket entry number is not available through public search, but the case termination date confirms this event). This filing indicated that the parties had reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

2022-06-29: Case Dismissed
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the court formally closed the case.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

While Squarespace did not appear to file its own inter partes review (IPR) petition, it was listed as a real party-in-interest in IPR proceedings brought by other technology companies against the '397 patent.

• IPR2021-01224 & IPR2021-01226 (Petitioner: Facebook, Inc.): Facebook filed IPRs against the '397 patent. The petition for IPR2021-01224 explicitly listed Squarespace, Inc., among other co-defendants in Express Mobile's litigation campaign, as a real party-in-interest. This indicates a coordinated defensive strategy among the various defendants.
• IPR2021-00700 (Petitioner: Google LLC): Google also filed an IPR against the '397 patent, which was related to its own litigation with Express Mobile.

The ongoing pressure from these PTAB challenges, which threatened the validity of the asserted patent, likely played a significant role in motivating Express Mobile to settle with various defendants, including Squarespace.

Outcome

The litigation concluded with a confidential settlement and a dismissal with prejudice on 2022-06-29. This resolution prevented the case from proceeding to more costly stages such as claim construction (Markman hearing), summary judgment on the merits, or a trial. The dismissal with prejudice means Express Mobile cannot sue Squarespace again on the same claims.

Counsel for Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.

Express Mobile, Inc. was represented by attorneys from Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC, a Dallas-based intellectual property and litigation firm, along with local counsel in Delaware after the case was transferred.

• Name: Christopher M. Joe

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Joe is a founding partner of the firm and has extensive experience leading patent litigation campaigns for clients across various federal districts.

• Name: Eric W. Buether

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: A seasoned trial lawyer and founding partner, Buether has represented clients in numerous high-stakes patent and intellectual property disputes for several decades.

• Name: Brian A. Carpenter

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Carpenter, another founding partner, focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation, including significant patent infringement cases.

• Name: Stephen S. Mosher

  • Role: Local Counsel (Delaware)
  • Firm: The Mosher Firm LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mosher frequently serves as Delaware local counsel for out-of-state firms in patent litigation, appearing in numerous cases within the busy District of Delaware. This information is based on his role in the transferred case, D. Del. Case No. 1:20-cv-01163.

Counsel for Defendant Squarespace, Inc.

Based on court filings in the District of Delaware (Case 1:20-cv-01163), the following attorneys appeared on behalf of Squarespace, Inc.

• Jack B. Blumenfeld (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Blumenfeld is a highly experienced and well-regarded Delaware patent litigator, frequently serving as local counsel for major technology companies in the district.

• Michael A. Berta (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Berta is a seasoned patent litigator who has represented major technology companies such as Google, Netflix, and HTC in complex patent disputes.

• Joshua H. Lee (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Lee's practice focuses on patent litigation in federal district courts and at the PTAB, representing clients in the software and telecommunications industries.