Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 57 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. _______________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile” or “Plaintiff”), by its attorneys, demands
`
`a trial by jury on all issues so triable and for its Complaint against Defendant GoDaddy.com, LLC
`
`(“GoDaddy” or “Defendant”) alleges the following:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for GoDaddy’s infringement of Express
`
`Mobile’s United States Patent Nos. 6,546,397 (“the ’397 patent”), 7,594,168 (“the ’168 patent”),
`
`9,063,755 (“the ’755 patent”), 9,471,287 (“the ’287 patent”), and 9,928,044 (“the ’044 patent”)
`
`(collectively the “Patents-In-Suit”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. is an inventor-owned corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business at 38 Washington Street, Novato, CA
`
`94947.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, GoDaddy.com, LLC is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Delaware, with a place of business at 14455 N. Hayden Road, Scottsdale,
`
`AZ 85260. GoDaddy may be served through its registered agent for service, The Corporation
`
`Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 57 PageID #: 2
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, GoDaddy provides website building, hosting, and
`
`marketing services to millions of customers, including both businesses and individuals.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, jurisdiction and venue for this action are proper in the
`
`District of Delaware.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has purposefully
`
`availed itself of the rights and benefits of the laws of this State and this Judicial District. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. This
`
`Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has done and is doing substantial
`
`business in this Judicial District, both generally and, on information and belief, with respect to the
`
`allegations in this complaint, including Defendant’s one or more acts of infringement in this
`
`Judicial District.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and
`
`§ 1400(b).
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 6,546,397 entitled “Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine,”
`
`including the right to sue and to recover for infringement thereof. The ’397 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued on April 8, 2003, naming Steven H. Rempell as the inventor. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’397 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 57 PageID #: 3
`
`10.
`
`The inventions of the ’397 patent solve technical problems related to website
`
`creation and generation. For example, the inventions enable the creation of websites through
`
`browser-based visual editing tools such as selectable settings panels which describe website
`
`elements, with one or more settings corresponding to commands. These features are exclusively
`
`implemented utilizing computer technology including a virtual machine.
`
`11.
`
`The claims of the ’397 patent do not merely recite the performance of some pre-
`
`Internet business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’397 patent recite inventive
`
`concepts that are rooted in computerized website creation technology, and overcome problems
`
`specifically arising in the realm of computerized website creation technologies.
`
`12.
`
`The claims of the ’397 patent recite inventions that are not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of website creation systems and methods. Instead, the inventions teach a
`
`browser-based website creation system and method in which the user-selected settings
`
`representing website elements are stored in a database, and in which said stored information is
`
`retrieved to generate said website.
`
`13.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’397 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`website or web page authoring tools nor any other well-known prior art technology.
`
`14.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’397 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible
`
`concept.
`
`15.
`
`In Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-RS, a case filed in the Northern District of California,
`
`the defendant in that action, Code and Theory LLC, brought a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint asserting that the ’397 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 (asserted in Count II below)
`
`are not subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. (Case No. 3:18-CV-
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 57 PageID #: 4
`
`04679-RS Dkt.35). Subsequent briefing included Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.’s Opposition to
`
`Defendant Code and Theory LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Case No. 3:18-CV-
`
`04679-RS Dkt.40), and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [sic] (Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-
`
`RS Dkt.41). Each of those filings is incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`In C.A. 2:17-00128, a case filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the defendant in
`
`that action, KTree Computer Solutions brought a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting
`
`that the ’397 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 (asserted in Count II below) were invalid as
`
`claiming abstract subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (C.A. 2:17-00128 Dkt. 9.) Subsequent
`
`briefing included Plaintiff’s Response and related Declarations and Exhibits (C.A. 2:17-00128
`
`Dkt. 17, 22-24), KTree’s Reply (C.A. 2:17-00128 Dkt. 25), and Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply and related
`
`Declarations and Exhibits (C.A. 2:17-00128 Dkt. 26-27). Each of those filings is incorporated by
`
`reference into this Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`After a consideration of the respective pleadings, Magistrate Judge Payne
`
`recommended denial of KTree’s motion, without prejudice, holding that “the claims appear to
`
`address a problem particular to the internet: dynamically generating websites and displaying web
`
`pages based on stored user-selected settings” and further stating “the asserted claims do not bear
`
`all of the hallmarks of claims that have been invalidated on the pleadings by other courts in the
`
`past. For example, the claims are not merely do-it-on-a-computer claims.” (Dkt. 29, attached as
`
`Exhibit F.) No objection was filed to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and the
`
`decision therefore became final.
`
`18.
`
`In Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS, a case filed in the Northern District of California,
`
`the defendant in that action, Pantheon Systems, Inc. brought a Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II
`
`of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserting that the ’397 patent and U.S. Patent No.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 57 PageID #: 5
`
`7,594,168 (asserted in Count II below) were directed to the abstract idea of creating and displaying
`
`webpages based upon information from a user with no further inventive concept and purportedly
`
`ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“§ 101”). (Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS Dkt.26)
`
`Subsequent briefing included Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss (Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS Dkt.32), and Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS
`
`Dkt.34). Each of those filings is incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`After a motion hearing and a consideration of the respective pleadings, Hon.
`
`Richard Seeborg denied both motions holding that “it simply cannot be said on the present record
`
`that the claims are drawn so broadly as to be divorced from the potentially patent-eligible purported
`
`technological improvements described in the specification” and further stating “the patents here
`
`are directed at a purportedly revolutionary technological solution to a technological problem—
`
`how to create webpages for the internet in a manner that permits “what you see is what you get”
`
`editing, and a number of other alleged improvements over the then-existing methodologies.” (Case
`
`No. 3:18-CV-04679-RS Dkt.45; Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS Dkt.40; attached as Exhibit G.)
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 7,594,168 entitled “Browser Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine,”
`
`including the right to sue and to recover for infringement thereof. The ’168 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued on September 22, 2009, naming Steven H. Rempell as the inventor. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’168 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`21.
`
`The inventions of the ’168 patent solve technical problems related to website
`
`creation and generation. For example, the inventions enable the creation of websites through
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 57 PageID #: 6
`
`browser-based build tools and a user interface. These features are exclusively implemented
`
`utilizing computer technology.
`
`22.
`
`The claims of the ’168 patent do not merely recite the performance of some pre-
`
`Internet business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’168 patent recite inventive
`
`concepts that are rooted in computerized website creation technology, and overcome problems
`
`specifically arising in the realm of computerized website creation technologies.
`
`23.
`
`The claims of the ’168 patent recite inventions that are not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of website creation systems and methods. Instead, the inventions teach a
`
`browser-based website creation system including a server comprising a build engine configured to
`
`create and apply styles to, for example, a website with web pages comprised of objects.
`
`24.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’168 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`website or web page authoring tools nor any other well-known or prior art technology.
`
`25.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’168 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible
`
`concept.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 9,063,755 entitled “Systems and methods for presenting information on mobile devices,”
`
`including the right to sue and to recover for infringement thereof. The ’755 Patent was duly and
`
`legally issued on June 23, 2015, naming Steven H. Rempell, David Chrobak and Ken Brown as
`
`the inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’755 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`27.
`
`The inventions of the ’755 patent solve technical problems related to a system for
`
`generating code to provide content on a display of a device. For example, the inventions of the
`
`’755 patent produce and deliver code in the form of players and applications to devices. The
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 7 of 57 PageID #: 7
`
`players and applications then display information received from a web service. These features are
`
`exclusively implemented utilizing computer technology.
`
`28.
`
`The claims of the ’755 patent do not merely recite the performance of some pre-
`
`Internet business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’755 patent recite inventive
`
`concepts that are rooted in the computerized generation of content on a display of a device, such
`
`as a mobile device, and overcome problems specifically arising in the realm of computerized
`
`content generation and display technologies.
`
`29.
`
`The claims of the ’755 patent recite inventions that are not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of systems and methods for the computerized generation of content on a display
`
`of a device. Instead, the inventions feature systems for use with devices and methods of using the
`
`systems with authoring tools to produce Players specific to each device and Applications that are
`
`device independent.
`
`30.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’755 patent does not preempt all ways for the
`
`computerized generation of code for a display of a device nor any other well-known or prior art
`
`technology.
`
`31.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’755 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible
`
`concept.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 9,471,287 entitled “Systems and Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices,”
`
`including the right to sue and to recover for infringement thereof. The ’287 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued on October 18, 2016, naming Steven H. Rempell, David Chrobak and Ken Brown
`
`as the inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’287 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 8 of 57 PageID #: 8
`
`33.
`
`The inventions of the ’287 patent solve technical problems related to generating
`
`content on a display of a device, such as the display of a mobile device. For example, the
`
`inventions of the ’287 patent define a User Interface (“UI”) object, either selected by a user or
`
`selected automatically, for display on the device. The inventions of the ’287 patent also produce
`
`and deliver code in the form of players and applications to devices. The players and applications
`
`then display information received from a web service. These features are exclusively implemented
`
`utilizing computer technology.
`
`34.
`
`The claims of the ’287 patent do not merely recite the performance of some pre-
`
`Internet business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’287 patent recite inventive
`
`concepts that are rooted in the computerized generation of content on a display of a device, such
`
`as a mobile device, and overcome problems specifically arising in the realm of computerized
`
`display content generation technologies.
`
`35.
`
`The claims of the ’287 patent recite inventions that are not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of systems and methods for the computerized generation of content on a display
`
`of a device. Instead, the inventions feature systems for use with devices and methods of using the
`
`systems with authoring tools to produce Players specific to each device and Applications that are
`
`device independent.
`
`36.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’287 patent does not preempt all ways for the
`
`computerized generation of content on a display of a device nor any other well-known or prior art
`
`technology.
`
`37.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’287 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible
`
`concept.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 9 of 57 PageID #: 9
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 9,928,044 entitled “Systems and Methods for Programming Mobile Devices,” including the
`
`right to sue and to recover for infringement thereof. The ’044 patent was duly and legally issued
`
`on March 27, 2018, naming Steven H. Rempell, David Chrobak and Ken Brown as the inventors.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’044 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`39.
`
`The inventions of the ’044 patent solve technical problems related to generating
`
`and distributing programming to mobile devices over a network. For example, the inventions of
`
`the ’044 patent define a User Interface (“UI”) object, either selected by a user or selected
`
`automatically, for display on the device. The inventions of the ’044 patent also produce and deliver
`
`code in the form of players and applications which include web page views. The players and
`
`applications then display information received from a web service. These features are exclusively
`
`implemented utilizing computer technology.
`
`40.
`
`The claims of the ’044 patent do not merely recite the performance of some pre-
`
`Internet business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’044 patent recite inventive
`
`concepts that are rooted in the computerized generation of content on a display of a device, such
`
`as a mobile device, and overcome problems specifically arising in the realm of computerized
`
`display content generation technologies.
`
`41.
`
`The claims of the ’044 patent recite inventions that are not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of systems and methods for the computerized generation of content on a display
`
`of a device. Instead, the inventions feature systems for use with devices and methods of using the
`
`systems with authoring tools to generate and distribute application and player code that generate
`
`displays on a device, such as a mobile device, utilizing information stored in databases and
`
`retrieved from web services.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 10 of 57 PageID #: 10
`
`42.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’044 patent does not preempt all ways for the
`
`computerized generation and distribution of programming to a device nor any other well-known
`
`or prior art technology.
`
`43.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’044 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible
`
`concept.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Express Mobile is a leader in the business of developing mobile app and
`
`web site design and creation platforms, and has intellectual property including U.S. patents relating
`
`to certain tools useful in the field. Express Mobile is managed by individuals with many years of
`
`technology and business experience. The CEO of Express Mobile, Steve Rempell, is the inventor
`
`of Express Mobile’s patent portfolio. Mr. Rempell has over 50 years’ experience in technology
`
`companies, with much of that work focused on web-based technologies and applications.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant GoDaddy is a well-known company that provides website building,
`
`hosting, and marketing services to businesses as well as individuals. GoDaddy has grown rapidly
`
`and now generates billions of dollars of revenue per year.
`
`46.
`
`Using the technology claimed by the Patents-In-Suit, GoDaddy’s Website Builder
`
`and WordPress Websites (the “Accused Instrumentalities”) build, host, and market websites for
`
`GoDaddy’s customers by letting the customers select settings representing website elements,
`
`storing these settings in a database, and retrieving stored information to generate websites. The
`
`Accused Instrumentalities also generate code in the form of players and applications that can
`
`interact with web services to provide content for display on users’ devices.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 11 of 57 PageID #: 11
`
`47.
`
` The Accused Instrumentalities enable a user to produce a website through a
`
`browser on the user’s computer that interacts with the server facility and platform hosted by
`
`GoDaddy. That website is then viewable by other users with a browser, including Microsoft
`
`Internet Explorer and Edge, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and Google Chrome. All of these well-
`
`known modern browsers rely on engines that fit the definition of a virtual machine, which
`
`interprets and executes JavaScript, HTML, CSS, and other code, to render web pages on a
`
`computer. These engines include, but are not limited to, JavaScript engines such as Chrome V8
`
`(Chrome), SpiderMonkey (Firefox), JavaScriptCore (Safari), and Chakra (Edge), as well as
`
`browser engines such as Webkit (Safari), Gecko (Safari), and Blink (Chrome).
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,546,397
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 47
`
`above.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant GoDaddy has manufactured, used, offered for sale, or sold browser-
`
`based website building tools that infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one
`
`or more claims of the ’397 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Defendant’s infringement
`
`will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, GoDaddy has and continue to directly infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’397 patent through its Accused Instrumentalities that provide browser-based
`
`website authoring tools in which the user-selected settings representing website elements are
`
`stored in a database, and in which said stored information is retrieved to generate said website.
`
`51.
`
`For example, GoDaddy infringes at least claim 1 of the ’397 patent by presenting a
`
`viewable menu having a user selectable panel of settings (e.g., font size) describing elements on a
`
`web site, said panel of settings being presented through a browser on a computer adapted to accept
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 12 of 57 PageID #: 12
`
`one or more of said selectable settings in said panel as inputs therefrom, and where at least one of
`
`said user selectable settings in said panel corresponds to commands to said virtual machine.
`
`52.
`
`The user selectable settings correspond to commands to the virtual machine. For
`
`example, in the viewable menu above, one of the user selected settings is the font size of the tagline
`
`“Helping you design success!” That setting corresponds to the commands to a virtual machine
`
`(e.g., font-size) to display the text in the selected size (e.g., 22px for medium size and 28px for
`
`
`
`large).
`
`53.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities generating a display (e.g., preview) in accordance
`
`with one or more user selected settings substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof.
`
`For example, as shown below when the font-size (e.g., large font) is changed in the panel of
`
`settings, GoDaddy’s Website Builder generates the display substantially contemporaneously with
`
`
`
`the selection.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 13 of 57 PageID #: 13
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities use a database to store
`
`information representative of the user selected settings. For example, the presence of a database
`
`(or databases) in GoDaddy’s Website Builder is evidenced by, among other things, the saving of
`
`the user selectable settings formatted in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) to the backend server.
`
`As seen below, shortly after a user selects a new text size for the tagline “Helping you design
`
`success!” GoDaddy’s Website Builder processes and saves the settings formatted in JSON. JSON
`
`is a data
`
`format
`
`frequently used
`
`to
`
`store and query databases.
`
` See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.infoworld.com/article/3222851/what-is-json-javascript-object-notation-
`
`explained.html. Other user selected settings stored include theme, cover image, accent, alignment,
`
`font, logo, among others.
`
`55.
`
`A further example of the Accused Instrumentalities using a database to store
`
`information representative of the user selected settings is found in GoDaddy’s Managed
`
`WordPress database. See, e.g., https://www.godaddy.com/help/view-my-database-details-24574.
`
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities generate a website by retrieving information
`
`representative of user selected settings stored in GoDaddy’s database. For example, GoDaddy’s
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 14 of 57 PageID #: 14
`
`Website Builder generates the website below including the tagline “Helping you design success!”
`
`by retrieving the user selected font size setting from a database.
`
`
`
`57.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities build one or more web pages of the website from
`
`the information in the database and at least one run time file. For example, GoDaddy’s Website
`
`Builder builds the web page shown above using information from the database (e.g., tagline, font
`
`size) and a number of run time files, including HTML, JavaScript, PHP, and other code files.
`
`58.
`
`At run time, at least one run time file utilizes information stored in the database to
`
`generate the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code for one or more displayed web pages. The HTML,
`
`CSS, JavaScript code represents virtual machine commands that is interpreted and executed by the
`
`applicable browser engine, which comprises an abstract machine that is not built in hardware but
`
`is emulated in software, to render the web page display. In the exemplary screenshot below, at
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 15 of 57 PageID #: 15
`
`least one run time file in GoDaddy’s Website Builder generates HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code
`
`corresponding to the displayed web page shown above.
`
`59.
`
`The presence of the above referenced elements is demonstrated, by way of example, by
`
`
`
`reference to publicly available information. See, e.g.:
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/websites/website-builder;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/hosting/wordpress-hosting;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/websites/online-store;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/dive-in-browse-all-articles-list-24708;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/websites#diyourself;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/set-up-my-site-20104;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/add-a-section-20119;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/build-your-website-23907;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/add-a-blog-to-my-website-27368;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/add-link-to-video-24586;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/add-or-change-photo-gallery-24585;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/add-online-appointments-section-27307;
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 16 of 57 PageID #: 16
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/garage/introducing-godaddy-websites-marketing/;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/style-text-24510;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/add-or-replace-photo-20111;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/using-page-builder-in-wordpress-24542;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/view-my-database-details-24574;
`
`https://www.godaddy.com/help/which-browsers-work-with-your-products-6451.
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, GoDaddy was made aware of the ’397 patent and its
`
`infringement thereof at least as early as February 28, 2013 and again on December 20, 2018 when
`
`Plaintiff provided notice of Defendant’s infringement of the ’397 patent. Furthermore, Defendant
`
`has been aware of the ‘397 patent and its infringement thereof since at least the filing of the
`
`complaint.
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the time Defendant received notice,
`
`Defendant have induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ’397
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful
`
`blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to Defendant’s
`
`partners, clients, customers, and end users, whose use of the Accused Instrumentalities constitutes
`
`direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’397 patent.
`
`62.
`
`In particular, Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as customers, clients,
`
`partners, developers, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. Defendant actively encourages the adoption of the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`and provide support sites for the vast network of developers working with the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, emphasizing the user-friendly nature of their website builder and explaining that
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 17 of 57 PageID #: 17
`
`“Website Builder. Your all-in-one solution to creating a professional website that looks great
`
`anywhere and everywhere.” (See, e.g., https://www.godaddy.com/websites#diyourself). On
`
`information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause
`
`infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement because Defendant has had
`
`actual knowledge of the ’397 patent and knowledge that their acts were inducing infringement of
`
`the ’397 patent since at least the date Defendant received notice that such activities infringed the
`
`’397 patent.
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is liable as contributory infringers of the
`
`’397 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to sell, selling and importing into the United
`
`States website or web page authoring tools to be especially made or adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the ’397 patent. The Accused Instrumentalities are a material component for use
`
`in practicing the ’397 patent and are specifically made and are not a staple article of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, since the date of its receipt of notice, Defendant’s
`
`infringement of the ’397 patent has been willful.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has damaged and continues to damage and injure
`
`Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s injury is irreparable and will continue unless and until Defendant is enjoined
`
`by this Court from further infringement.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,594,168
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 65
`
`above.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant GoDaddy has manufactured, used, offered for sale, or sold browser-
`
`based website building tools that infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 18 of 57 PageID #: 18
`
`or more claims of the ’168 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Defendant’s infringement
`
`will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`68.
`
`On information and belief, GoDaddy has and continue to directly infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’168 patent through its Accused Instrumentalities that provide browser-based
`
`website authoring tools in which the user-selected settings representing website elements are
`
`stored in a database, and in which said stored information is retrieved to assemble said website.
`
`69.
`
`For example, GoDaddy infringes at least claim 1 of the ’168 patent by providing a
`
`system for assembling a web site comprising a server comprising a build engine configured
`
`practice each limitation of claim 1 through a combination of features. As shown in the exemplary
`
`screenshot below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise GoDaddy’s Website Builder’s editor as
`
`part of a system for assembling a web site hosted on GoDaddy’s server.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 19 of 57 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`70.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities is configured to accept user input to create a website
`
`comprising a plurality of web pages, where each web page comprising a plurality of objects, such
`
`as “Cover Image,” “Promotional Banner,” and “Headline.” For example, as shown in the
`
`screenshot below, the GoDaddy’s Website Builder’s editor is configured to accept user input (e.g.,
`
`selection of font size) and create a website.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 20 of 57 PageID #: 20
`
`71.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities’ build engine is configured to accept user input to
`
`associate a style with objects of the plurality of web pages. As shown in the screenshots below,
`
`by using GoDaddy’s Website Builder’s editor, a user can input fields to associate a style, such as
`
`“Accent,” with an object. Additionally, the at least one button object or at least one image object
`
`is associated with a style that includes values defining transformations and time lines for the at
`
`least one button object or at least one image object. Buttons and images created using GoDaddy’s
`
`Website Builder editor have associated styles, such as Layout, Accent, and functionality. The
`
`buttons and images further include transformations and time lines definitions that affect the
`
`appearance and b