Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 74 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SQUARESPACE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, brings this action for patent infringement against Defendant Squarespace, Inc.
`
`(“Squarespace” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Squarespace’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 a Delaware corporation with a place of business
`
`at 38 Washington Street, Novato, CA 94947.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Squarespace, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a registered agent at Incorporating Services, Ltd., 3500 S Dupont Hwy, Dover,
`
`DE 19901, and a place of business at 225 Varick Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10014.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 74 PageID #: 2
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters pleaded herein under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`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, on information and belief, Defendant
`
`has transacted or does transact business in this Judicial District, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`and has committed, contributed to, and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this Judicial
`
`District.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`8.
`
`On April 8, 2003, United States Patent No 6,546,397 entitled “Browser Based
`
`Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine,” was duly and legally issued to Steven H.
`
`Rempell after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest
`
`in and to the ‘397 patent, including the right to recover for infringement thereof. A copy of the
`
`‘397 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`9.
`
`The claimed inventions of the ‘397 patent solve technical problems related to the
`
`creation and generation of websites. For example, the inventions enable the creation of websites
`
`through browser-based visual editing tools, for example, selectable settings that describe website
`
`elements, with one or more settings corresponding to commands. These features are implemented
`
`utilizing computer technology, including a virtual machine.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 74 PageID #: 3
`
`10.
`
`The claims of the ‘397 patent do not merely describe performing some known
`
`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 specific to
`
`this realm.
`
`11.
`
`The claimed inventions of the ‘397 patent do not merely apply routine or
`
`conventional technologies for website creation and generation. Instead, the claims describe a
`
`browser-based website creation system and method in which information representing user-
`
`selected settings for a website are stored in a database, and the stored information is retrieved to
`
`generate the website.
`
`12.
`
`The claims in the ‘397 patent do not preempt all ways of creating and generating
`
`websites or web pages, all uses of website authoring tools, nor any other well-known prior art
`
`technology.
`
`13.
`
`Each claim of the ‘397 patent thus recites a combination of elements sufficient to
`
`ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent- ineligible concept.
`
`14.
`
`On September 22, 2009, United States Patent No 7,594,168 entitled “Browser
`
`Based Web Site Generation Tool and Run Time Engine,” was duly and legally issued to Steven
`
`H. Rempell after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all right, title, and
`
`interest in and to the ‘168 patent, including the right to recover for infringement thereof. A copy
`
`of the ‘168 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`15.
`
`The claimed inventions of the ‘168 patent solve technical problems related to the
`
`creation and generation of websites. For example, the inventions utilize browser-based build tools
`
`and a user interface to enable the creation of websites. These inventions greatly improve the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 74 PageID #: 4
`
`productivity of the designer utilizing an innovative implementation for styles. These features are
`
`implemented utilizing computer technology.
`
`16.
`
`The claimed inventions of the ‘168 patent do not perform a known business
`
`practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’168 patent recite inventive concepts rooted in
`
`computerized website creation technology, and overcome problems specifically arising in this
`
`realm.
`
`17.
`
`The claimed inventions of the ‘168 patent do not merely apply routine or
`
`conventional technologies for website creation and generation. Instead, the inventions describe 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.
`
`18.
`
`The claims in the ‘168 patent do not preempt all ways of creating and generating
`
`websites or web pages, all uses of website authoring tools, nor any other well-known or prior art
`
`technology.
`
`19.
`
`Each claim of the ‘168 patent thus recites a combination of elements sufficient to
`
`ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept.
`
`20.
`
`In Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-RS, an infringement action filed by Plaintiff 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 and ‘168 patents do not claim
`
`patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. (Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-
`
`RS D.I. 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 D.I. 40), and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [sic] (Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-
`
`RS D.I. 41). Each of those filings is incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 74 PageID #: 5
`
`21.
`
`In Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS, an infringement action filed by Plaintiff 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
`
`and ‘168 patents 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. (Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS D.I. 26.) Subsequent briefing included
`
`Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 3:18-CV-
`
`04688-RS D.I. 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 D.I. 34). Each of those filings
`
`is incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`After a motion hearing and a consideration of the respective pleadings, the Hon.
`
`Richard Seeborg denied both motions with respect to both patents in a joint order, because “the
`
`patents purport to describe a novel technological approach to creating websites on the internet.”
`
`(Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-RS D.I. 45; Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS D.I. 40; attached as Exhibit
`
`F.) In denying the motions, Judge Seeborg made several findings:
`
`• “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.” Id. at 5.
`
`• The claims of the ‘397 and ‘168 patents are “directed to a specific improvement to the
`way computers operate,” and “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.” Id. at 5-6.
`
`23.
`
`In C.A. 2:17-00128, an infringement action filed by Plaintiff in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, the defendant in that action, KTree Computer Solutions, brought a Motion for
`
`Judgement on the Pleadings, asserting that the ‘397 and ‘168 patents were invalid as claiming
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 74 PageID #: 6
`
`abstract subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (C.A. 2:17-00128 D.I. 9.) Subsequent briefing
`
`included Plaintiff’s Response and related Declarations and Exhibits (C.A. 2:17-00128 D.I. 17, 22-
`
`24), KTree’s Reply (C.A. 2:17-00128 D.I. 25), and Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply and related Declarations
`
`and Exhibits (C.A. 2:17-00128 D.I. 26-27). Each of those filings is incorporated by reference into
`
`this Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`After 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.” (C.A. 2:17-00128 D.I.
`
`29, attached as Exhibit G.) No objection was filed to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
`
`recommendation and the decision therefore became final.
`
`25.
`
`In Case Nos. 1:18-CV-01173-RGA and 1:18-CV-01175-RGA, infringement
`
`actions filed by Plaintiff in the District of Delaware, the respective defendants in those actions,
`
`DreamHost LLC and Hostway Services, Inc., brought Motions to Dismiss claims of the ‘397 and
`
`‘168 patents on the basis of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Case No. 1:18-CV-01173-RGA D.I.
`
`14; Case No. 1:18-CV-01175-RGA D.I. 14.) Subsequent briefing included Plaintiff’s Responses
`
`and related Declarations and Exhibits (Case No. 1:18-CV-01173-RGA D.I. 18-21; Case No. 1:18-
`
`CV-01175-RGA D.I. 17-19), and defendants’ Replies (Case No. 1:18-CV-01173-RGA D.I. 24;
`
`Case No. 1:18-CV-01175-RGA D.I. 23). Each of these filings is incorporated by reference.
`
`26.
`
`After consideration of the respective pleadings, Judge Andrews denied both
`
`motions in a joint order, pointing to factual allegations of inventiveness identified by the Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 74 PageID #: 7
`
`and an expert declaration explaining inventiveness of the claims, noting that such factual issues
`
`preclude a finding of invalidity on a motion to dismiss. (Case No. 1:18-CV-01173-RGA D.I. 43;
`
`Case No. 1:18-CV-01175-RGA D.I. 42; attached as Exhibit H.)
`
`27.
`
`On June 23, 2015, United States Patent No 9,063,755 entitled “Systems and
`
`methods for presenting information on mobile devices,” was duly and legally issued to Steven H.
`
`Rempell, David Chrobak and Ken Brown after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the lawful
`
`owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘755 patent, including the right to recover for
`
`infringement thereof. A copy of the ‘755 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`28.
`
`The inventions of the ‘755 patent utilize inventive concepts to solve technical
`
`problems, such as those associated with methods and systems for displaying dynamic content on
`
`displays of devices, providing more efficient ways of generating code for more uniformly
`
`displaying dynamic content across different kinds of devices. For example, the inventions of the
`
`‘755 patent allow a data-efficient and flexible association between a symbolic name and a UI
`
`object (e.g., a UI object for a widget), corresponding to a web component of a web service, that is
`
`defined for presentation on a display of a device. A device-independent application including the
`
`symbolic name is produced and provided to the device, together with a device-platform-dependent
`
`player.
`
`29.
`
`The claimed inventions of the ‘755 patent allow the UI object to be efficiently
`
`displayed across different kinds of devices (e.g., PC, mobile or tablet; or different browsers,
`
`operating systems, and applications, including also for example both native and browser-based
`
`applications). In turn, a user can enter an input value to the UI object, and obtain an output value
`
`based on a web service associated with the UI object, the input value and output value also being
`
`communicated through symbolic names to provide an additional level of efficiency. These
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 74 PageID #: 8
`
`inventive features are implemented utilizing computer technology and solve technical problems in
`
`the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`The claims of the ‘755 patent do not recite merely the performance of a known
`
`business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ‘755 patent recite inventive concepts
`
`concerning the computerized, data-efficient generation of server-based content (e.g., a UI object
`
`for providing dynamic content) on displays for different types of devices, such as PC, tablet, or
`
`mobile devices, or different browsers and applications. For example, the claims of the ‘755 patent
`
`utilize symbolic name associations and provide device-independent applications including those
`
`symbolic names, together with device-platform-dependent players, to devices. Further, input
`
`values and output values for the defined content are also communicated as symbolic names. Such
`
`features are specifically grounded in, and overcome problems with data efficiency and flexibility
`
`specifically arising in, the realm of computerized content generation and display technologies, and
`
`are not well-understood, routine, and conventional elements.
`
`31.
`
`For example, the claimed inventions of the ‘755 patent recite innovative,
`
`technical improvements that associate symbolic names with defined UI objects (e.g., UI objects
`
`for a widget) corresponding to web components of web services, and produce device-independent
`
`applications including those symbolic names, together with device-dependent players, to provide
`
`more uniform, data-efficient content display across different types of devices.
`
`32.
`
`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. For example, the specific, innovative technical improvements claimed in the ‘755
`
`patent do not preempt well-known methods of generating code for a display of a device by
`
`programming in HTML or JavaScript code.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 74 PageID #: 9
`
`33.
`
`Each claim of the ‘755 patent thus recites a combination of elements sufficient to
`
`ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible concept.
`
`34.
`
`On October 18, 2016, United States Patent No 9,471,287 entitled “Systems and
`
`Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices,” was duly and legally issued to Steven H.
`
`Rempell, David Chrobak and Ken Brown after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the lawful
`
`owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘287 patent, including the right to recover for
`
`infringement thereof. A copy of the ‘287 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`35.
`
`The inventions of the ‘287 patent solve technical problems, such as those
`
`associated with methods and systems for displaying dynamic content on displays of devices by
`
`providing more efficient ways of generating code for more uniformly displaying dynamic content
`
`across different kinds of devices. For example, the inventions of the ‘287 patent allow a data-
`
`efficient and flexible association between a symbolic name and a UI object (e.g., a UI object for a
`
`widget) corresponding to a web component of a web service, that is defined for presentation on a
`
`display of a device. The defined UI object can be selected by a user of an authoring tool or
`
`automatically selected by a system based on a web component selected by the user. Further, the
`
`symbolic name has a data format type corresponding to a subclass of UI objects that support the
`
`data format type of the symbolic name. A device-independent application including the symbolic
`
`name is then produced and provided to the device together with a device—platform-dependent
`
`player. Such operations provide a user-friendly platform allowing the UI object to be efficiently
`
`defined and more uniformly displayed across different kinds of devices (e.g., PC, mobile or tablet;
`
`or different browsers, operating systems, and applications, including also for example both native
`
`and browser-based applications). These inventive features are implemented utilizing computer
`
`technology and solve technical problems in the prior art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 74 PageID #: 10
`
`36.
`
`The claims of the ‘287 patent do not recite merely the performance of a known
`
`business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ‘287 patent recite inventive concepts
`
`grounded in the computerized, data-efficient definition and generation of content (e.g., a UI object
`
`for providing dynamic content) on displays for different types of devices, such as PC, tablet, or
`
`mobile devices, or different browsers and applications. Such features are specifically grounded in,
`
`and overcome problems with data efficiency and flexibility specifically arising in, the realm of
`
`computerized content generation and display technologies, and are not well-understood, routine,
`
`and conventional elements.
`
`37.
`
`For example, the claimed inventions of the ‘287 patent recite innovative,
`
`technical improvements that associate symbolic names with UI objects (e.g., UI objects for a
`
`widget) corresponding to web components of web services that are manually or automatically
`
`selected, and defined based on, for example, data format type, and produce device-independent
`
`applications including those symbolic names, together with device-dependent players, to provide
`
`more uniform, data-efficient server-based content display across different types of devices.
`
`38.
`
`The technology claimed in the ‘287 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. For example, the specific, innovative technical improvements do not preempt well-
`
`known methods of generating code for a display of a device by programming in HTML or
`
`JavaScript code.
`
`39.
`
`Each claim of the ‘287 patent thus recites a combination of elements sufficient to
`
`ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible concept.
`
`40.
`
`On March 27, 2018, United States Patent No 9,928,044 entitled “Systems and
`
`Methods for Integrating Widgets on Mobile Devices,” was duly and legally issued to Steven H.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 74 PageID #: 11
`
`Rempell, David Chrobak and Ken Brown after full and fair examination. Plaintiff is the lawful
`
`owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘044 patent, including the right to recover for
`
`infringement thereof. A copy of the ‘044 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`41.
`
`The inventions of the ‘044 patent solve technical problems, such as those
`
`associated with methods and systems for displaying dynamic content on displays of devices by
`
`providing more efficient ways of generating, storing, and retrieving code for displaying dynamic
`
`content more uniformly across different kinds of devices. For example, the inventions of the ‘044
`
`patent allow a data-efficient and flexible association between a symbolic name with a UI object
`
`(e.g., a UI object for a widget) corresponding to a web component of a web service, that is manually
`
`or automatically selected. The symbolic name has a data format type corresponding to a subclass
`
`of UI objects that support the data format type of the symbolic name, and is only available to UI
`
`objects that support the data format of the symbolic name. Information representative of the
`
`defined UI object can be stored in a database, and subsequently retrieved from the database to
`
`build an application consisting of at least a portion of the database using a player, which uses the
`
`information to generate one or more web pages for display across different kinds of devices (e.g.,
`
`PC, mobile or tablet; or different browsers, operating systems, and applications, including also for
`
`example both native and browser-based applications). These inventive features are implemented
`
`utilizing computer technology and solve technical problems in the prior art.
`
`42.
`
`The claims of the ‘044 patent do not recite merely the performance of a known
`
`business practice on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ‘044 patent recite inventive concepts
`
`grounded in the computerized, data-efficient definition, selection, storage and generation of user
`
`defined content (e.g., a UI object for providing dynamic content) on displays for different types of
`
`devices, such as PC, tablet, or mobile devices, or different browsers and applications. Such features
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 74 PageID #: 12
`
`are specifically grounded in, and overcome problems with data efficiency and flexibility
`
`specifically arising in, the realm of computerized content generation and display technologies, and
`
`are not well-understood, routine, and conventional elements.
`
`43.
`
`For example, the claimed inventions of the ‘044 patent recite innovative,
`
`technical improvements that select and associate symbolic names with defined UI objects (e.g., UI
`
`objects for a widget) corresponding to web components of web services based on, for example,
`
`data format type, storing information representative of such settings in a database, and building
`
`applications, which together with players, generate more uniform, data-efficient content display
`
`across different types of devices.
`
`44.
`
`The technology claimed in the ‘044 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. For example, the specific, innovative technical improvements do not preempt well-
`
`known methods of generating code for a display of a device by programming in HTML or
`
`JavaScript code.
`
`45.
`
`Each claim of the ‘044 patent thus recites a combination of elements sufficient to
`
`ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible concept.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is a provider of website building tools.
`
`Defendant manufactures, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale the Squarespace Website Builder
`
`platform, which, on information and belief, infringes each of the above-referenced patents.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 74 PageID #: 13
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,546,397
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 46 above as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has infringed the ‘397 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly and/or indirectly.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has infringed the ‘397 patent by
`
`performing, without authority, one or more of the following acts during relevant time periods:
`
`making, using, offering to sell, selling within, and importing into, the United States products and
`
`services that practiced the claimed inventions of the ‘397 patent, including but not limited to the
`
`Squarespace website builder platform (the “Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`50.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities infringed at least claim 1 of the ‘397 patent
`
`through a combination of features that collectively practiced each limitation of claim 1. By way of
`
`example, the Accused Instrumentalities provided a website builder, described by Defendant as an
`
`“all-in-one platform to build a beautiful website.”
`
`https://www.squarespace.com/website-design
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 14 of 74 PageID #: 14
`
`51.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities allowed users to produce Internet websites on and
`
`for computers having a browser and a virtual machine capable of generating displays. The Accused
`
`Instrumentalities supported modern browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Microsoft Edge,
`
`and Internet Explorer, which used browser engines (virtual machines) capable of generating a
`
`display by interpreting and executing code such as JavaScript and HTML to render web pages on
`
`a computer.
`
`https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/articles/205815548-Supported-browsers
`
`52.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities provided for the web building process to start by
`
`the selection of one of various layouts or starter layouts, which comprise blocks, as shown in the
`
`
`
`examples below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 15 of 74 PageID #: 15
`
`1
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The blocks contained text, image, or other content, and could be modified and
`
`customized through a menu having a user selectable panel of settings presented to the user
`
`describing various elements for the content. In a panel for editing text, for example, a user could
`
`modify paragraph styles, as well as text to be in bold or italics. In the example below, the word
`
`“Specifically” is modified to be displayed in italics, and display in accordance with the selected
`
`setting is generated substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof. On information
`
`and belief, this functionality was present during relevant time periods of infringement.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, the images presented in this Complaint were generated for investigative
`purposes by testing the Accused Instrumentalities on https://www.hubspot.com/.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 16 of 74 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`54.
`
`As another example, a user could select an image and add a caption to the selected
`
`image. As shown below, when an image is selected to be displayed and the sentence “A test image
`
`is used for test” is added as the image caption, a display in accordance with the selected settings is
`
`generated substantially contemporaneously with the selection thereof. On information and belief,
`
`this functionality was present during relevant time periods of infringement.
`
`
`
`55.
`
`After selection of the desired settings, the user could click on “Save” to store
`
`information representative of the selected settings in a database. As indicated below, data for
`
`Squarespace websites, which comprised JSON API, were stored in Squarespace servers and data
`
`centers (i.e., databases) across the United States, with images and other static assets being served
`
`via multiple geographically distributed content delivery networks (CDNs).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 17 of 74 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`https://support.squarespace.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012540827-Where-does-Squarespace-
`store-my-data-
`
`56.
`
`In the example below, an image is configured by adding the caption “A test image
`
`is used for test.” Upon entry of the caption text, a “SaveItenField” POST is sent to a Squarespace
`
`server at https://prism-cello-a2tt.squarespace.com/api/commondata/SaveItemField so that the
`
`caption “A test image is used for test” is stored in the Squarespace database as the image setting.
`
`The form data, which comprises JSON data, contains the itemId “5f1f1d93173b882549f3afbd,”
`
`the field “altText,” and the value “A test image is used for test.” On information and belief, this
`
`functionality was present during relevant time periods of infringement.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 18 of 74 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`
`
`57.
`
`A Squarespace website was generated in part by retrieving the information for
`
`the user selected settings stored in the Squarespace database. In the example below, if a user
`
`selected setting such as an image with the caption “A test image is used for test” is previously
`
`saved in the Squarespace database, a browser can load the website by sending a “test-page-1” GET
`
`requesting the saved image and image caption “A test image is used for test,” which are
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 19 of 74 PageID #: 19
`
`downloaded from Squarespace server (URL: https://prism-cello-a2tt.squarespace.com/test-page-
`
`1). Specifically, as in the example below, Squarespace’s server requests the image file to be
`
`downloaded from a CDN server (URL: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com). On information and
`
`belief, this functionality was present during relevant time periods of infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 20 of 74 PageID #: 20
`
`
`
`58.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities built the user’s website comprising one or more
`
`web pages from data stored in the database and run time files that used the data stored in the
`
`database to generate commands for the browser engine to display the one or more web pages. In
`
`the example below, the Accused Instrumentalities provide a sample website which consists of four
`
`web pages: Test Page 1, Shop, Our Story, Journal, and Contact. On information and belief, this
`
`functionality was present during relevant time periods of infringement.
`
`
`
`59.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities relied on a browser build engine to generate a
`
`website comprising one or more web pages based on objects and style data extracted from at least
`
`a portion of the Accused Instrumentalities’ database and at least one run time file. As shown in the
`
`example below, the Accused Instrumentalities’ HTML file fetched from the Squarespace server
`
`embeds various run time files (including CSS files, and Javascript files). When the browser build
`
`engine parses the HTML file, the web browsers also make a request (GET method) to fetch the
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01163-RGA-JLH Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 21 of 74 PageID #: 21
`
`embedded CSS and Javascript run time files. On information and belief, this functionality was
`
`present during relevant time periods of infringement.
`
`
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities fetched HTML (*.html)
`
`files, CSS (*.css) files, and Javascript (*.js) files from the Squarespace server and converted them
`
`into a working website to display. Specifically, the HTML files were used to create structural
`
`elements of the website by controlling the layout of the content and providing structure for web
`
`page design. The CSS files were used to stylize the website by applying style to the webpage
`
`elements and improving the visual displays of the web pages. The Javascript files were used to
`
`increase interactivity between the user and the web site by adding interactivity to a web page and
`
`handling complex functions and features. In the exemplary screenshot below, the Accused
`
`Instrument