Express Mobile v. GoDaddy, decided April 2, 2025

Case Name and Citation: EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. 2023-2265 (Fed. Cir. April 2, 2025) (nonprecedential)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Judge(s): Lourie, Taranto (author), and Stoll, Circuit Judges

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025

Issue(s):

1. Did the District Court err in its construction of the claim term "runtime engine" in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168 (the ’397 patent family)?

2. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment of noninfringement to GoDaddy regarding the ’397 patent family based on its claim construction?

3. Did the District Court err in denying Express Mobile's motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) or, in the alternative, a new trial regarding the jury's verdict of noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755, 9,471,287, and 9,928,044 (the ’755 patent family)?

   
   

Holding(s):

1. Yes, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's construction of "runtime engine."

2. Yes, the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement regarding the ’397 patent family.

3. No, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of Express Mobile's motion for JMOL or a new trial regarding the ’755 patent family.

   
   

Facts:

Express Mobile, Inc. sued GoDaddy.com, LLC for patent infringement in 2019, alleging infringement of five patents across two families: the ’397 patent family (covering systems and methods for building websites) and the ’755 patent family (covering systems and methods for displaying website information, integrating widgets, and programming, especially on mobile devices).

Regarding the ’397 patent family, the District Court construed the claim phrase "runtime engine" to require that it perform the function of "read[ing] information from the database." Based on this construction, the District Court granted GoDaddy summary judgment of noninfringement.

Regarding the ’755 patent family, the asserted claims went to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict of noninfringement. The District Court subsequently denied Express Mobile's requests for JMOL or a new trial.

Express Mobile appealed both the summary judgment decision regarding the ’397 patent family and the denial of post-judgment relief regarding the ’755 patent family.

Reasoning:

I. ’397 Patent Family – Claim Construction and Summary Judgment:

The Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court's claim construction of "runtime engine" de novo. The District Court had construed "runtime engine" as "a file that is executed at runtime that reads information from the database and generates commands to display a web page or website." Express Mobile argued for a broader construction: "a file that is executed at runtime that utilizes information from the database and generates commands to display a web page or website."

The Federal Circuit agreed with Express Mobile's proposed construction, finding that the District Court's inclusion of the "reads information from the database" limitation was not supported by the intrinsic evidence (claim language, specification, and prosecution history).

• Claim Language: The court noted that the claims themselves state that the "at least one run time file" "utilizes information stored in said database" (’397 patent, claim 1) and that the "runtime engine" is "configured to generate the web-site from the objects and style data extracted from the provided database" (’168 patent, claim 1). The court emphasized that the terms "utilize[]" and "extracted from" are broader than requiring the runtime engine itself to "read" from the database.

• Specification: While the specification does describe embodiments where the runtime engine reads from the database (e.g., "'397 patent, col. 5, lines 59–62 ('The run time engine then begins to read the database . . . .')"), the court reiterated that claims are not necessarily limited by the specification's specific embodiments, especially when the claim language is broader. "[W]hile claims are to be construed in light of the specification, they are not necessarily limited by the specification."

• Prosecution History: The Federal Circuit also rejected GoDaddy's argument that the prosecution history supported the narrower construction. Express Mobile's statements during prosecution describing the runtime engine as "reading and interpreting the external database" were understood in context as distinguishing prior art that did not use an "external database" or produce web pages dynamically, rather than disclaiming any other means of the runtime engine obtaining database information. Importantly, the claims were later amended to use the broader phrase "operating to utilize information."

• Other Tribunals: The Federal Circuit stated that prior claim constructions by other tribunals were not binding and that GoDaddy had not shown that those analyses undermined the Federal Circuit's own claim construction. The court also rejected GoDaddy's estoppel argument based on an inter partes review, finding that Express Mobile had not gained an advantage by not pressing its "used-by" construction in that proceeding.

Because the District Court's grant of summary judgment was based entirely on its erroneous claim construction, the Federal Circuit reversed the construction, vacated the summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings on infringement under the correct construction.

II. ’755 Patent Family – Denial of JMOL and New Trial:

The Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court's denial of JMOL de novo and the denial of a new trial for "abuse of discretion," applying the standards of the Third Circuit.

• Claim Construction Arguments at Trial: Express Mobile argued that GoDaddy contradicted the District Court's claim constructions of "device-dependent code" and "registry" by improperly understanding "platform" and "database." The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, stating that such complaints about improper party argument or testimony must be raised during trial. Since Express Mobile did not object or seek further claim construction during the trial, it could not raise these issues in post-trial motions or on appeal.

• "Player" Limitation: Express Mobile contended that the evidence compelled a finding that GoDaddy's code met the "Player" limitation, which was construed as "device-specific code which contains instructions of a device and which is separate from the Application." Express Mobile argued that browser detection code in GoDaddy's products constituted "device-specific code" because a browser is a "platform." The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that GoDaddy's expert and a named inventor testified that a browser is not a Player and that the accused JavaScript files were not device-specific. The court held that whether "platform" included a browser was a factual issue for the jury in the absence of further claim construction, and the jury's rejection of Express Mobile's position was not unreasonable.

• "Registry" and "Symbolic Names" Limitations: Express Mobile argued that the evidence compelled a finding that GoDaddy's products met the "registry" (construed as "a database that is used for computing functionality") and "symbolic names" limitations. The Federal Circuit sided with the District Court, finding that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of noninfringement. GoDaddy's expert testified that what Express Mobile identified as the registry was an unstructured file and not a database, and Express Mobile's expert admitted to not verifying the contents of the accused registry. Furthermore, GoDaddy's witnesses testified that the accused "symbolic names" were not stored in a database and did not evoke web components as claimed.

Because substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of noninfringement regarding the ’755 patent family, and Express Mobile did not demonstrate any basis for a new trial, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of post-trial relief.

Conclusion:

The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's claim construction of "runtime engine" and vacated the summary judgment of noninfringement for the ’397 patent family, remanding for further proceedings under the correct claim construction. The court affirmed the District Court's denial of post-trial relief for the ’755 patent family, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of noninfringement and that Express Mobile had not established grounds for a new trial. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.