EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Weebly, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This litigation represents a single front in a broad, multi-year patent assertion campaign by Express Mobile, Inc. against the website development industry. The plaintiff, Express Mobile, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) whose business model centers on licensing a portfolio of patents related to web and mobile technology. The defendant, Weebly, Inc., is an operating company providing a popular drag-and-drop website builder and hosting service, which was acquired by Square (now Block, Inc.) in 2018. The lawsuit alleged that Weebly's platform, which allows users without technical expertise to create and publish websites, infringed on Express Mobile's intellectual property. This case is one of dozens filed by Express Mobile against a wide array of technology companies, including other website builders like GoDaddy, Wix, and Shopify, indicating a clear pattern of large-scale patent assertion.

The dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." This patent, with a priority date in the late 1990s, generally covers methods for building a website directly within a web browser using a "what you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG) interface, where the system generates the underlying code for the website from user manipulations of objects and style data. Express Mobile's infringement contention targeted the core functionality of Weebly's service, which allows users to design a website visually, with the platform handling the technical implementation in the background. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a prominent venue for technology and patent disputes known for its specific local patent rules and experienced judiciary in handling complex IP matters.

The case was filed on June 14, 2019, and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. While this specific lawsuit against Weebly did not generate major rulings, it is notable as part of Express Mobile's sweeping litigation campaign that has had a significant impact on the industry, leading to high-stakes legal battles with other major tech companies. For instance, Express Mobile engaged in protracted litigation with GoDaddy, ultimately securing a $170 million jury verdict in late 2025, and also fought a contentious case against Shopify that involved a $40 million verdict later overturned by the judge. The lawsuit against Weebly was comparatively short-lived and, according to a USPTO filing related to a subsequent inter partes review of the '397 patent, was terminated on August 13, 2020. While public records do not specify the exact terms of the dismissal, the termination of the case within 14 months, consistent with the typical lifecycle of a settlement in such NPE cases, suggests the parties likely reached a confidential agreement.

Litigation Timeline and Key Developments

A detailed docket for this specific case is not readily available through public web searches. However, information from related proceedings and the case's inclusion in a broader litigation campaign by Express Mobile provide some key details and context.

Filing and Initial Stages

• 2019-06-14: Express Mobile, Inc. filed its complaint against Weebly, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. This patent generally relates to a "browser-based web site generation tool and run time engine."
• This lawsuit was part of a large-scale litigation campaign initiated by Express Mobile in 2018 and 2019 against numerous technology companies offering website building and hosting services. Other defendants in parallel lawsuits included GoDaddy, Shopify, Wix, and others.
• It is notable that Weebly, Inc. had been acquired by Square, Inc. (now Block, Inc.) in a deal that closed in the second quarter of 2018, a year before this lawsuit was filed.

Final Disposition: Dismissal

• 2020-08-13: The case against Weebly was terminated. The court records indicate the case was "Dismissed."
• The specific reason for the dismissal, such as a settlement, is not available in the public records found. However, given that the case was dismissed just over a year after filing and did not appear to proceed to major litigation milestones like a Markman hearing or summary judgment, the dismissal was likely the result of a private settlement between the parties, a common outcome in such patent disputes.

Parallel Litigation and Its Impact

While the Weebly case itself was short-lived, the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, and others in the same family have been heavily litigated in other courts and challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): The '397 patent and its relatives have been subject to multiple IPR challenges filed by other defendants sued by Express Mobile.
  • For instance, IPRs were filed by Google (IPR2021-00700) and Facebook (IPR2021-01224) against related U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168, which shares a specification with the '397 patent. These proceedings often lead district courts to stay the corresponding infringement cases. The early dismissal of the Weebly case suggests it was likely resolved before any potential stay related to these later-filed IPRs could be entered.
• Litigation Against Other Parties: Express Mobile's lawsuits against other companies have progressed much further, leading to significant rulings that would have been relevant to the Weebly case had it continued.
  • In a case against GoDaddy involving the '397 patent, a district court's claim construction of the term "runtime engine" led to a summary judgment of non-infringement for GoDaddy. This was later appealed to the Federal Circuit.
  • Other cases against defendants like Shopify resulted in multi-million dollar jury verdicts, which were subsequently overturned by the presiding judge and later addressed on appeal.

The early dismissal of the Weebly case spared the parties from the protracted and expensive litigation that characterized Express Mobile's other lawsuits.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on a consistent pattern of representation in numerous patent infringement cases filed by Express Mobile, Inc. around the same period, the following attorneys and law firms are identified as counsel for the plaintiff. While the specific notice of appearance for this case was not publicly retrieved, these lawyers were the principal attorneys in parallel litigation efforts by Express Mobile.

---

Lead Counsel

• Name: Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware

• Note on Experience: A seasoned patent litigator with over two decades of experience, he has represented clients in numerous infringement cases across districts like Delaware, E.D. Texas, and N.D. California.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

• Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware

• Note on Experience: With over 20 years in intellectual property law, he focuses on patent litigation and appeals, having previously practiced at Fish & Richardson, P.C.

Local Counsel

• Name: Yuval H. Marcus
• Role: Local Counsel / Co-Counsel
• Firm: Leason Ellis LLP
• Office Location: White Plains, New York
• Note on Experience: As managing partner and co-chair of litigation at his firm, he has over 30 years of experience litigating a wide range of intellectual property disputes nationwide.

It is worth noting that in other significant litigation, such as cases against Shopify and GoDaddy, Express Mobile has also been represented by trial teams from the firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP, indicating a multi-firm strategy for its broader patent assertion campaign. The core filing and prosecution of many of these smaller cases, like the one against Weebly, appear to have been handled primarily by Stamoulis & Weinblatt.

Based on available docket information, counsel for defendant Weebly, Inc. were from the law firm of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. While a notice of appearance for each specific attorney is not publicly accessible through standard web searches, the firm's involvement is documented.

Defense Counsel for Weebly, Inc.

• Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Due to the dismissal of the case, likely at an early stage, detailed records including specific attorney names and their precise roles are not widely available in public legal databases. The firm has a significant patent litigation practice with offices in San Francisco, California.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton is frequently recognized for its work in intellectual property litigation. Their attorneys regularly represent major technology companies in federal district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, without access to the specific court filings like a notice of appearance or the defendants' answer, the individual attorneys who worked on this matter cannot be definitively identified and their specific litigation experience detailed.