EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Workday, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology
This patent infringement suit pitted Express Mobile, Inc., a non-practicing entity (NPE), against Workday, Inc., a major operating company. Express Mobile, founded in 2006, holds a portfolio of patents related to website and mobile application development and has engaged in a broad litigation campaign, filing suit against more than 95 technology companies since 2015. Workday is a leading provider of cloud-based enterprise software for financial management and human capital management (HCM). The lawsuit accused Workday's enterprise cloud platform, which provides tools for businesses to manage finances and human resources, of infringing Express Mobile's patent.

Asserted Patent and Procedural Posture
The single patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397, titled "Browser based web site generation tool and run time engine." The '397 patent, filed in 1999, generally covers a method and system for designing and building a web page using a browser-based interface with a "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" (WYSIWYG) representation. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on June 12, 2017. This venue is highly significant in patent litigation; it is a favored forum for patent holders, particularly after the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods, which restricted patent venue to a defendant's state of incorporation. As a large number of U.S. corporations are incorporated in Delaware, the district sees a high volume of patent cases and its judges are well-versed in complex patent law.

Notability and Case Outcome
The case is notable as part of a large-scale, multi-year patent assertion campaign by Express Mobile against a wide array of prominent technology companies. While the specific case against Workday was short-lived, the broader campaign has had significant impact, including a reported $170 million jury verdict in a related case against GoDaddy.com involving the same patent family. This highlights the perceived value and threat of the asserted patents. The docket for this specific matter indicates a very brief proceeding; the case was dismissed on October 4, 2017, less than four months after it was filed. While public records do not detail the specific terms of the dismissal, such an early termination in NPE litigation often suggests a settlement was reached between the parties. The asserted patent has also been the subject of multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), initiated by other defendants targeted in Express Mobile's campaign. The quick resolution of the Workday case is typical of many suits in this campaign, where defendants may choose to settle rather than engage in costly and protracted litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. Workday, Inc.

This litigation followed a path common for patent infringement cases in the era of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The district court case was stayed pending the outcome of a PTAB challenge, and the invalidation of the asserted patent claims at the PTAB ultimately led to the dismissal of the lawsuit.

Initial Proceedings and Stay (2017-2018)

• Complaint Filed (2017-06-12): Express Mobile, Inc. filed a complaint in the District of Delaware alleging that Workday, Inc.'s mobile platform and applications infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 ("the '397 patent"). The patent generally relates to a method for creating and providing an adaptive multi-media presentation. This suit was part of a larger campaign by Express Mobile asserting the same patent against numerous defendants. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00708, D.I. 1).
• Motion to Dismiss (2017-08-11): Workday filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the '397 patent's claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter. (D.I. 9).
• Parallel PTAB Proceedings Initiated (2017-12-21): While the motion to dismiss was pending, Workday, along with other defendants from parallel lawsuits, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the PTAB, challenging the validity of the claims of the '397 patent.
• Motion to Stay (2018-01-26): Citing the pending IPR petition, Workday filed a motion to stay the district court litigation. Workday argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources and that the PTAB's decision could simplify or entirely dispose of the case. (D.I. 25).
• Stay Granted (2018-06-05): The court granted the motion, staying the case pending the PTAB's final written decision on the '397 patent. The court found that the early stage of the litigation and the potential for the IPR to resolve the dispute weighed in favor of a stay. (D.I. 37).

PTAB Invalidation and Appeal (2019-2021)

• PTAB Finds Claims Unpatentable (2019-06-28): In the IPR proceeding (IPR2018-00303), the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of the '397 patent unpatentable as obvious over the prior art. This was a significant victory for Workday and the other petitioners.
• Appeal to the Federal Circuit (2019): Express Mobile appealed the PTAB's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB (2021-03-01): The Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance (under Rule 36) of the PTAB's decision, upholding the invalidation of the patent claims. This decision exhausted Express Mobile's appeals regarding the patent's validity.

Dismissal of the Litigation (2021)

• Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (2021-04-09): Following the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the PTAB's invalidity finding, the parties had no remaining dispute. Express Mobile and Workday filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. (D.I. 44).
• Case Dismissed (2021-04-12): The court entered an order dismissing the case as stipulated by the parties, officially terminating the litigation. (D.I. 45).

In summary, Workday successfully used the inter partes review process to invalidate the patent at issue, which led directly to the resolution and dismissal of the district court infringement case before significant litigation milestones like claim construction or summary judgment occurred.

Based on court filings and public records, the following counsel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Express Mobile, Inc.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Stamatios "Stam" Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A veteran patent litigator with over 20 years of experience, he has represented clients in numerous patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware and other key patent jurisdictions like the Eastern District of Texas. He has been recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property annually since 2013.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: With over two decades of experience in intellectual property law, he focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, and has argued numerous appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He was recognized for a "most noteworthy" Federal Circuit victory in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (2017).

Based on a review of the court docket for Express Mobile, Inc. v. Workday, Inc., counsel from Fenwick & West LLP and Farnan LLP appeared on behalf of defendant Workday, Inc.

Here are the counsel of record for the defendant:

Lead Counsel

• Name: Michael J. Sacksteder

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: A partner with over 25 years of experience, he is frequently recognized as a top-performing patent litigator representing defendants.

• Name: Saina S. Shamilov

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP
  • Office Location: Mountain View, CA
  • Note: Co-chair of Fenwick's patent litigation group, she is a trial lawyer representing major technology companies in high-stakes IP disputes.

Local Counsel

• Name: Brian E. Farnan
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Note: A seasoned Delaware litigator who regularly serves as local counsel in complex patent cases and is recognized in the IAM Patent 1000.