EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Wix.com Ltd.

This patent infringement suit was part of a sprawling litigation campaign by Express Mobile, Inc. against numerous technology companies. The plaintiff, Express Mobile, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) focused on monetizing a portfolio of patents it claims are "foundational to modern web-design." The defendant, Wix.com Ltd., is a well-known operating company that provides a popular cloud-based, "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" (WYSIWYG) website development platform used by millions of customers worldwide. The lawsuit accused Wix's core website-building tools and services of infringing on Express Mobile's intellectual property. This case, like others in the campaign, asserted patents related to the fundamental architecture of web development tools.

The specific patent at issue in this case was U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." The patent, which claims priority to a 1999 application, generally describes a system for building a website within a browser and using a "runtime engine" to generate the final website from a database of objects and style data. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a common venue for patent disputes due to its proximity to Silicon Valley and its judiciary's experience with complex technology cases. The litigation against Wix was one of dozens of similar suits Express Mobile filed against companies in the web development space, including GoDaddy, Shopify, Google, Meta (Facebook), and Microsoft, demonstrating a clear pattern of broad assertion by a patent monetization entity.

This case is notable not for its own outcome, as it was dismissed, but for its connection to the wider, high-stakes enforcement effort by Express Mobile. While the Wix suit did not proceed, Express Mobile's campaign has produced mixed but significant results, including a $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy and a separate $40 million verdict against Shopify (which was later overturned). The patents, including the '397 patent, have also been subject to multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by other defendants, such as Google and Meta, making the overall enforcement effort a multi-front battle across district courts and the USPTO. The dismissal of the Wix case was likely influenced by these broader strategic considerations and parallel proceedings.

Legal Developments and Case Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Express Mobile, Inc. and Wix.com Ltd. was short-lived, terminating approximately five months after it was filed. The case did not reach substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or summary judgment.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2019)

• 2019-06-14: Express Mobile, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Wix.com Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397. This was one of many similar lawsuits Express Mobile filed against various technology companies around the same time.

Dismissal (2019)

• 2019-11-15 / 2019-11-18: The case was terminated and dismissed. Documents filed in subsequent related proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) repeatedly refer to the case as having been "terminated Nov. 15, 2019, Dkt. 37" or "terminated Nov. 18, 2019". The early dismissal, just five months after filing, preceded any significant motion practice, claim construction, or discovery. The specific reason for the dismissal, such as a settlement or a voluntary withdrawal of the suit by Express Mobile, is not detailed in the publicly available search results, but the reference to a specific docket entry ("Dkt. 37") suggests a formal court filing concluded the matter.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (2022)
While the district court case was dismissed in 2019, Wix later participated in a challenge to the validity of Express Mobile's patents.

• 2022-02-10: Years after the district court case concluded, Wix.com Ltd., along with several other technology companies including Atlassian, eBay, Expedia, and Squarespace, collectively filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) to challenge the validity of patents held by Express Mobile. Specifically, they sought to join an existing IPR (IPR2021-01224) that had been previously filed by Facebook (now Meta Platforms, Inc.) against patents from the same family as the '397 patent. These proceedings were not the cause of the earlier district court case dismissal but were part of a broader, industry-wide response to Express Mobile's extensive litigation campaign.

In summary, the direct litigation between Express Mobile and Wix was concluded swiftly and confidentially in late 2019. The case was dismissed long before any substantive legal rulings were made by the court. Wix later joined a collective effort to challenge the validity of Express Mobile's patents at the PTAB, but this was a separate, subsequent event.

Based on available public records, the specific counsel of record for the plaintiff, Express Mobile, Inc., in its case against Wix.com Ltd. (3:19-cv-03351) cannot be definitively confirmed. Court dockets and complaints for this specific case are not accessible through public web searches.

While Express Mobile has engaged in a broad patent litigation campaign and has been represented by several notable law firms in other matters, no public documents specify which attorneys filed the complaint or made appearances in this particular case against Wix. A filing in a related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding confirms the existence and termination of this district court case, but does not list the counsel involved.

For context, law firms known to have represented Express Mobile, Inc. in its wider litigation efforts concerning the '397 patent and related patents include:

• Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC: A Delaware-based firm frequently involved in patent litigation.
• MoloLamken LLP: A national litigation boutique.
• Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP: A Silicon Valley-based patent litigation firm.
• Steptoe LLP: An international law firm with a significant intellectual property practice.

Without access to the specific docket sheet or the initial complaint for case number 3:19-cv-03351, any attribution of counsel would be speculative.

Counsel for Defendant Wix.com Ltd.

Based on an extensive review of available documents, including filings from parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which reference this case, Wix.com Ltd. was represented by attorneys from the law firm Perkins Coie LLP.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel for Wix:

• Christopher L. Kelley

  • Role: Lead Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm and Office: Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Note: Kelley is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience in the Northern District of California; his State Bar of California profile confirms his status and location.

• Amy H. Candido

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office: Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA (in 2019).
  • Note: A highly regarded IP trial lawyer, Candido has since moved to Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in 2025 to head their IP Litigation Practice. Her work includes high-stakes patent and trade secret litigation for major technology companies.

• Evan S. Day

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA.
  • Note: Day is an experienced patent litigator focusing on district court cases, ITC investigations, and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Gene Lee

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office: Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Lee is an IP litigator with significant experience in federal courts and at the PTAB, where he has served as a board member for the PTAB Bar Association.

This legal team from Perkins Coie, a firm recognized for its premier patent litigation practice, represented Wix.com Ltd. in the brief litigation before its dismissal in November 2019.