`
`STEVEN J. RIZZI (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`srizzi@kslaw.com
`RAMY HANNA (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`rhanna@kslaw.com
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1185 Avenue of the Americas, 35th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 556-2100
`Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
`
`RYAN A. SCHMID (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`rschmid@kslaw.com
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Telephone: (202) 737-0500
`Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
`
`RAMON A. MIYAR (CA SBN 284990)
`rmiyar@kslaw.com
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`50 California Street, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 318-1200
`Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-08491
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S
`COMPLAINT
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-08491
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, brings this action for patent infringement against Defendant Booking
`
`Holdings, Inc. (“Booking” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Booking’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 Delaware corporation with a
`
`place of business at 38 Washington Street, Novato, CA 94947.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Booking Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business located at 800 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, CT
`
`06854. On information and belief, Booking Holdings, Inc. maintains at least one regular and
`
`established place of business in this District via its office located at 101 Mission St #800, San
`
`Francisco, California, 94105 and/or its office located at 1 Montgomery St Ste 700, San Francisco,
`
`California, 94104. Booking Holdings, Inc. is a public company with shares listed on NASDAQ.
`
`Booking Holdings, Inc. was formerly known as The Priceline Group, Inc.
`
`4.
`
`Booking offers online travel and restaurant searching and reservation products and
`
`services, including the infringing products and services, throughout the United States, including in
`
`this District. In particular, Booking markets and provides these products and services through six
`
`widely-used and recognized e-commerce brands: (1) “Booking.com,” which includes the
`
`www.Booking.com website, Booking.com mobile application, and Pulse mobile application, (2)
`
`“KAYAK,” which include the www.Kayak.com website and Kayak mobile application, (3)
`
`“Priceline,” which includes the www.Priceline.com website and Priceline mobile application, (4)
`
`“Rentalcars.com,” which includes the www.Rentalcars.com website and Rentalcars mobile
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`application, (5) “Agoda,” which includes the www.Agoda.com website and Agoda mobile
`
`application, and (6) “OpenTable,” which includes the www.OpenTable.com website and
`
`OpenTable mobile application. See https://ir.bookingholdings.com/node/24796/html, pp. 1-4
`
`(“We offer these services through six primary consumer-facing brands: Booking.com, KAYAK,
`
`priceline, agoda, Rentalcars.com and OpenTable. While historically our brands operated on a
`
`largely independent basis and many of them focused on a particular service (e.g., accommodation
`
`reservations) or geography, we are increasing the collaboration, cooperation and interdependency
`
`among our brands in our efforts to provide consumers with the best and most comprehensive
`
`services. We also seek to maximize the benefits of our scale by sharing resources and
`
`technological innovations, co-developing new services and coordinating activities in key markets
`
`among our brands. For example, Booking.com, the world’s leading brand for booking online
`
`accommodation reservations (based on room nights booked), offers rental car and other ground
`
`transportation services, flights, restaurant reservations, tours and activities reservations and other
`
`services, many of which are supported by our other brands. Similarly, hotel reservations available
`
`through Booking.com are also generally available through agoda and priceline.”); see also
`
`https://www.bookingholdings.com/about/factsheet/;
`
`https://ir.bookingholdings.com/investor-
`
`relations.
`
`5.
`
`Booking operates these brands as a single business entity that it controls. See
`
`https://ir.bookingholdings.com/node/24796/html, pp. 1-4 (“We refer to our company and all of our
`
`subsidiaries and brands collectively as “Booking Holdings,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” or
`
`“us.”). In particular, Booking explains:
`
`The Booking Holdings Strategy
`
`We aim to achieve our mission to help people experience the world through
`
`global leadership in online travel and restaurant reservation and related
`
`services by:
`
`• providing consumers with the best choices and prices at any time,
`
`in any place, on any device;
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`• making it easy for people to find, book and experience their travel
`
`desires; and
`
`• providing platforms, tools and insights to our business partners to
`
`help them be successful.
`
`Id. Booking considers employees of its brands to be employees of Booking and revenues collected
`
`by its brands to be Booking’s revenues. Id. at 12 (“The number of our employees worldwide has
`
`grown from approximately 9,500 at December 31, 2013 to approximately 26,400 at December 31,
`
`2019 . . . . In addition, expansion increases the complexity of our business and places additional
`
`strain on our management, operations, technical performance, financial resources and
`
`administrative, legal, tax, internal control and financial reporting functions.”); id. at 2 (“For the
`
`year ended December 31, 2019, we had revenues of $15.1 billion, which we classify as ‘agency’
`
`revenues, ‘merchant’ revenues and ‘advertising and other’ revenues.”).
`
`6.
`
`Booking provides, operates, and controls the infringing online travel and restaurant
`
`searching and reservation products and services utilized by its brands. In particular, back-end
`
`servers, computing systems, user information, and other technology are provided, operated, and
`
`controlled by Booking and are connected and/or shared amongst the Booking brands. For instance,
`
`Booking explains “we aim to be the world leader in online travel and restaurant reservation and
`
`related services by . . . operating multiple brands that collaborate with each other.” Id. Booking
`
`explains further:
`
`Operating multiple brands. We employ a strategy of operating multiple
`
`brands, which we believe allows us the opportunity to offer our services in
`
`ways that appeal to different consumers, pursue different marketing and
`
`business strategies, encourage experimentation and innovation, provide
`
`different service offerings and focus on different markets. At the same time,
`
`we are increasing the collaboration, cooperation and interdependency
`
`among our brands in our efforts to provide consumers with the best and
`
`most comprehensive services. We intend to invest resources to support
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`organic growth by all our brands, whether through increased marketing,
`
`geographic expansion, technological innovation or increased access to
`
`accommodations, rental cars, restaurants, airline tickets or other services.
`
`. . .
`
`Our business is supported by multiple systems and platforms, which
`
`were designed with an emphasis on scalability, performance, reliability,
`
`redundancy and security. These systems and platforms are generally
`
`independent among our brands, though some have become increasingly
`
`connected or shared.
`
`Id. at 3-5.
`
`7.
`
`Thus, Booking directly and/or indirectly develops, designs, manufactures,
`
`distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells infringing products and services in the United States,
`
`including in the Northern District of California, and otherwise purposefully directs infringing
`
`activities to this District in connection with its products and services.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including specifically 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters pleaded herein under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Booking because Booking has (1)
`
`purposefully availed itself of the rights and benefits of the laws of this State and this Judicial
`
`District, (2) transacted, conducted, and/or solicited business and engaged in a persistent course of
`
`conduct in the State of California (and in this District) directly or through intermediaries, (3)
`
`derived substantial revenue from the sales and/or use of its infringing products and services, such
`
`as the WebDirect website building platform, the www.Booking.com website and Booking.com
`
`mobile application, the www.Priceline.com website and Priceline mobile application, and the
`
`www.Agoda.com website and Agoda mobile application, in the State of California (and in this
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`District), (4) purposefully directed activities (directly and/or through intermediaries), such as
`
`distributing, offering for sale, selling, marketing, and/or advertising its products and services, at
`
`residents of the State of California (and residents in this District), (5) delivered its products and
`
`services into the stream of commerce with the expectation that the such products and services will
`
`be used and/or purchased by consumers in the State of California (and in this District), and (6)
`
`committed, contributed to, and/or induced acts of patent infringement in the State of California
`
`(and in this District).
`
`11.
`
`In particular, Booking has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement
`
`in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, and has made, used, marketed, distributed, offered for sale, sold,
`
`and/or imported infringing products and services in/into the State of California, including in this
`
`District, and engaged in infringing conduct within and directed at or from this District. For
`
`example, Booking has purposefully and voluntarily placed its brands’ respective websites and
`
`mobile applications into the stream of commerce with the expectation that such websites and
`
`mobile applications will be used in this District. Booking’s websites and mobile applications have
`
`been and continue to be distributed to and used in this District. Booking’s acts cause and have
`
`caused injury to Express Mobile, including within this District.
`
`12.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Booking because it is registered to
`
`do business in California and has a regular and established place of business in the Northern
`
`District of California.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) based
`
`on the information and belief that (1) Booking has committed, contributed to, and/or induced acts
`
`of infringement, and/or has advertised, marketed, sold, and/or offered to sell products and services,
`
`including infringing products and services, in this Judicial District, as discussed above in ¶¶ 3-11,
`
`which are incorporated by reference herein, and (2) Booking maintains at least one regular and
`
`established place of business in this Judicial District via its office located at 101 Mission St #800,
`
`San Francisco, California, 94105 and/or its office located at 1 Montgomery St Ste 700, San
`
`Francisco, California, 94104.
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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
`
`productivity of the designer utilizing an innovative implementation for styles. These features are
`
`implemented utilizing computer technology.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`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-
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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 6.
`
`29.
`
`In C.A. 2:17-00128, an infringement action filed by Plaintiff in the Eastern District
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`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 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.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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,
`
`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.)
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`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.
`
`35.
`
`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
`
`inventive features are implemented utilizing computer technology and solve technical problems in
`
`the prior art.
`
`36.
`
`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 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
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`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 features are implemented utilizing computer technology and solve
`
`technical problems in the prior art.
`
`42.
`
`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.
`
`43.
`
`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 content display across different types of devices.
`
`44.
`
`The technology claimed in the ‘287 patent does not preempt all ways for the
`
`PLAINTIFF EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Booking, Exh. 1014, Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`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 ‘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.
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`47.
`
`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 c