Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 93
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-803
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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 Facebook Inc.
`
`(“Facebook” or “Defendant”) alleges the following:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Facebook’s infringement of
`
`Express Mobile’s United States Patent Nos. 6,546,397 (“the ’397 patent”), 7,594,168
`
`(“the ’168 patent”), 9,928,044 (“the ’044 patent”), 9,471,287 (“the ’287 patent”) and
`
`9,063,755 (“the ’755 patent”).
`
`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,
`
`California 94947.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Facebook Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware, with places of business at 300 W 6th Street, Austin,
`
`1
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 001
`
`Page 1 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 93
`
`Texas, 78701 and 607 W 3rd Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Facebook may be served through its
`
`registered agent for service at CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service California, 2710 Gateway
`
`Oaks Drive Ste 150N, Sacramento, California 95833.
`
`4.
`
`Facebook provides technologies that give people the power to connect with
`
`friends and family, find communities and grow businesses.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`Jurisdiction and venue for this action are proper in the Western District of Texas.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook because Facebook has
`
`purposefully availed itself of the rights and benefits of the laws of this State and this Judicial
`
`District. Facebook resides in the Western District of Texas by maintaining regular and
`
`established places of business at 300 W 6th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701 and 607 W 3rd Street,
`
`Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`8.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Facebook because Facebook has
`
`done and is doing substantial business in this Judicial District, both generally and, upon
`
`information and belief, with respect to the allegations in this Complaint, including Facebook’s
`
`one or more acts of infringement in this Judicial District.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and §
`
`1400(b). Facebook has committed acts of infringement through, for example, performing a
`
`method to allow users to produce Internet websites in the Western District of Texas and has
`
`regular and established places of business in this District. Facebook’s offices in Austin are
`
`physical places in the District, they are established locations where Facebook’s business has
`
`been carried out for several years, and Facebook publicly advertises its presence in the District.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 002
`
`Page 2 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 93
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`Express Mobile is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’397
`
`patent titled “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.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 003
`
`Page 3 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 93
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 7,594,168 titled “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.
`
`17.
`
`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
`
`browser-based build tools and a user interface. The inventions greatly improve the productivity
`
`of the designer utilizing an innovative implementation for styles. These features are
`
`implemented utilizing computer technology.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’168 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`website or webpage authoring tools nor any other well-known or prior art technology.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 004
`
`Page 4 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 93
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`In Express Mobile v. KTree Computer Solutions, a case filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, the defendant, KTree Computer Solutions, brought a Motion for Judgment on
`
`the Pleadings asserting that the ’397 patent and the’168 patent are invalid as claiming abstract
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (C.A. 2:17-00128; Dkt. 9, 17, 22-27). The briefing
`
`associated with the motion is incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`After considering 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 C.) No objection was filed to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
`
`recommendation and the decision therefore became final.
`
`24.
`
`In Express Mobile v. Pantheon Systems, Inc., a case filed in the Northern District
`
`of California, the defendant, Pantheon Systems, Inc., brought a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
`
`First Amended Complaint asserting that the ’397 patent and the ’168 patent 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; Dkt. 26, 32 and 34). The briefing associated with the motion is
`
`incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 005
`
`Page 5 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 93
`
`25.
`
`In Express Mobile v. Code and Theory LLC, a case filed in the Northern District
`
`of California, the defendant, Code and Theory LLC, brought a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint asserting that the ’397 patent and the ’168 patent are not subject matter eligible under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. (Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-RS; Dkt. 35, 40 and 41). The
`
`briefing associated with the motion is incorporated by reference into this Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`After a hearing and a consideration of the respective pleadings, Hon. Richard
`
`Seeborg denied both motions holding that:
`
`• “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.
`(Case No. 3:18-CV-04679-RS; Dkt.45; Case No. 3:18-CV-04688-RS Dkt.40; attached
`as Exhibit D.)
`
`27.
`
`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, D.I. 18-21 and 24 Case No. 1:18-CV-01175-RGA D.I. 17-19 and 23). The briefing
`
`associated with the motion is incorporated by reference into this Complaint..
`
`28.
`
`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 E.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 006
`
`Page 6 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 93
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 9,928,044 titled “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 F.
`
`30.
`
`The inventions of the ’044 patent solve technical problems associated with
`
`methods and systems for displaying content on displays of devices by providing more efficient
`
`ways of generating, storing and retrieving code for displaying content, for example dynamic
`
`content, 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 User
`
`Interface (“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 for example both native and browser-based applications.)
`
`31.
`
`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, data-efficient definition, selection, storage and
`
`generation of user defined object attributes (e.g., a UI object for a widget) on displays for
`
`different types of devices, such as PC, mobile or tablet or different browsers, and applications.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 007
`
`Page 7 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 93
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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 uniform, data-efficient content
`
`display across different types of devices.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`Accordingly, 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.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 9,471,287 titled “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 G.
`
`36.
`
`The inventions of the ’287 patent solve technical problems associated with
`
`methods and systems for displaying content on displays of devices by providing more efficient
`
`
`
`8
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 008
`
`Page 8 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 93
`
`ways of generating code for uniformly displaying content, for example 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 uniformly displayed across different kinds of devices (e.g., PC, mobile or
`
`tablet; or different browsers, operating systems, and applications, including for example both
`
`native and browser-based applications).
`
`37.
`
`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 object attributes (e.g.,
`
`a UI object for a widget) 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.
`
`38.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 009
`
`Page 9 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 93
`
`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 uniform, data-efficient server-based content display across different types of devices.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`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.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff is the lawful owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 9,063,755 titled “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 H.
`
`43.
`
`The inventions of the ’755 patent utilize inventive concepts to solve technical
`
`problems associated with methods and systems for displaying content on displays of devices,
`
`providing more efficient ways of generating code for uniformly displaying content, for example
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0010
`
`Page 10 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 93
`
`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.
`
`44.
`
`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 for example both native and browser-based
`
`applications), as opposed to, for example, programming directly in HTML or JavaScript code.
`
`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.
`
`45.
`
`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 object attributes (e.g., a
`
`UI object for a widget) 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 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.
`
`46.
`
`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-
`
`
`
`11
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0011
`
`Page 11 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 93
`
`independent applications including those symbolic names, together with device-platform-
`
`dependent players, to provide uniform, data-efficient content display across different types of
`
`devices.
`
`47.
`
`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.
`
`48.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`49.
`
`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
`
`decades of technology and business experience. The Chairman of the Board and CTO of
`
`Express Mobile, Steve Rempell, is the inventor of Express Mobile’s patent portfolio. Mr.
`
`Rempell has over 50 years of experience in technology companies, with much of that work
`
`focused on web-based technologies and applications.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant Facebook is a well-known company that provides technologies that
`
`give people the power to connect with friends and family, find communities and grow
`
`businesses. Facebook has grown rapidly and now generates billions of dollars of revenue per
`
`year.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0012
`
`Page 12 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 93
`
`COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,546,397
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 50
`
`above.
`
`52.
`
`Facebook has performed a method to allow users to produce Internet websites
`
`which infringed, 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).
`
`53.
`
`Facebook has directly infringed at least claim 1 of the ’397 patent through its
`
`platform, including Facebook.com and related software and servers (“the Accused
`
`Instrumentality”) that provides 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.
`
`54.
`
`Facebook has infringed at least claim 1 of the ’397 patent by having performed a
`
`method to allow users to produce Internet websites on and for computers having a browser and a
`
`virtual machine capable of generating displays.
`
`55.
`
`The Accused Instrumentality enabled a user to produce a website on the
`
`Facebook site through a browser on the user’s computer. Through the registration process, the
`
`user triggered creation of a timeline page as well as a set of related pages such as “Friends,”
`
`“Photos,” “Map,” “Following,” “Events” and “Notes.” The Accused Instrumentality presented
`
`an interface through which each of these pages (as well as others) could be edited.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0013
`
`Page 13 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 14 of 93
`
`
`56.
`
`The Accused Instrumentality allowed the user to create and edit other types of
`
`
`
`pages that were then added to the user’s Facebook site:
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook’s list of compatible browsers includes the latest versions of the
`
`
`57.
`
`following: Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Edge
`
`and Opera. (See: http://www.facebook.com/help/210310575676558).
`
`58.
`
`All of these well-known modern browsers rely on engines that fit the definition
`
`of a virtual machine, which interpret and execute JavaScript and HTML to render web pages on
`
`a computer. These include, but are not limited to, Javascript engines such as Chrome V8
`
`(Chrome), SpiderMonkey (Firefox), JavaScriptCore (Safari), Chakra (Edge). It also includes
`
`browser engines such as Webkit (Safari), Gecko (Safari), Blink (Chrome).
`
`59.
`
`To edit the Events page and add a new event, the user first selected “Events” to
`
`navigate to the user’s Events page.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0014
`
`Page 14 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 15 of 93
`
`
`60.
`
`From the Events page, the user selected “Create Event” to navigate to a window
`
`
`
`of selectable settings for the new event.
`
`
`
`
`61.
`
`In the “Create New Event” window, the user provided an event name and details,
`
`
`
`selected or added a location, selected from/to dates and times, and could select a privacy level
`
`(e.g., “Friends” or “Invite Only” and whether guests can invite friends).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0015
`
`Page 15 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 16 of 93
`
`
`
`
`
`62.
`
`The Accused Instrumentality-compatible browsers all rely on browser engines
`
`(which are process virtual machines) to generate and display the user-authored web pages on a
`
`particular computer, the settings (e.g., new event settings) that a user selected through the
`
`Facebook interface necessarily corresponded to virtual machine commands. For example, the
`
`HTML code tag below, which includes data for user-selected options for creating a new event
`
`(highlighted in red), was used by the browser’s engine to generate and display the Facebook
`
`user’s Events page for a user viewing the web page on a computer, the author’s selections being
`
`reflected in the displayed page.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`63.
`
`The display in the “Create New Event” window for the “Bob and Mike” event is
`
`updated immediately to show selections for each option as each is entered.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0016
`
`Page 16 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 17 of 93
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64.
`
`After the “Create” button is clicked from the “Create New Event” window, the full
`
`view of the events page was immediately updated.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0017
`
`Page 17 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 18 of 93
`
`65.
`
`Clicking the “Create” button when creating an Event initiated a “POST”
`
`command through JavaScript code to store the data on a Facebook server. The Google Chrome
`
`network diagnostic tool captured the network traffic between the Facebook server’s form
`
`processor (save.php) and the Facebook JavaScript code on the User’s device
`
`(“YxSsJaym0P3.js:18”) when a user clicked on “Create” to create this new event. The POST
`
`command of 1.2 kilobytes represented the data that was sent to the Facebook Server’s Form
`
`Processor (save.php) and saved in the Events record in the Facebook database.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`66.
`
`Facebook published a Graph API for its database that could create, edit or
`
`retrieve data for all defined pages, including event(s) from the Events page. The Facebook
`
`Graph API could retrieve the stored data for the “Bob and Mike” Event. The data could be
`
`returned in JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) format. User-selected options could be seen in
`
`the data. For example, the data corresponding to the event description “patent claims
`
`discussion” is shown below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0018
`
`Page 18 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 19 of 93
`
`67.
`
` The command
`
`
`
`GET/1374624033?fields=id,name,events.fields(description,start_time,end_time,
`
`location, name, owner, venue) retrieved all the Event data for Steve Rempell’s record
`
`“id”=”1374624033” shown below. Included in that record is the data related to event
`
`“id”=”154266558074170” for the 4/26/13 event at 11:00 am.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0019
`
`Page 19 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 20 of 93
`
`
`
`
`
`68.
`
`The screen shot below shows the actual Facebook Graph API “Event” data
`
`retrieval operation.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1014
`Page 0020
`
`Page 20 of 93
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00803-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 21 of 93
`
`
`
`
`
`69.
`
`The Accused Instrumentality uses Facebook’s “BigPipe” technology to have
`
`generated the Events Web Page. Facebook explains that: “After receiving the HTTP request and
`
`performing some sanity check on it, web server immediately sends back an unclosed HTML
`
`document that includes an HTML tag and the first part of the tag. The tag includes BigPipe’s
`
`JavaScript l