Express Mobile, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Fka Facebook, Inc., Sap America, Inc., Ebay, Inc., Expedia,…

N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
Appellant
v.
META PLATFORMS, INC., FKA FACEBOOK, INC.,
SAP AMERICA, INC., EBAY, INC., EXPEDIA, INC.,
HOMEAWAY.COM, INC., SQUARESPACE, INC.,
WIX.COM, LTD, WIX.COM, INC., GOOGLE LLC,
Appellees
______________________
2023-1646
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-
01226, IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00597.
______________________
Decided: June 17, 2025
______________________
R AYINER HASHEM , MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for appellant. Also represented by C ALEB HAYES-
DEATS, J EFFREY A. L AMKEN, JACKSON MYERS; SARA
MARGOLIS, B ENOIT QUARMBY, New York, NY; DAVID
A LBERTI, R OBERT KRAMER , SAL L IM , Kramer Alberti Lim &
Tonkovich LLP, Foster City, CA; J AMES R ICHARD N UTTALL,
Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL; C HRISTOPHER A LAN SUAREZ ,
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 1 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 1 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 2
Washington, DC; KENNETH J. WEATHERWAX, Lowenstein &
Weatherwax LLP, Santa Monica, CA.
HEIDI L YN KEEFE , Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
for all appellees. Appellee Meta Platforms, Inc. also repre-
sented by A NDREW C ARTER MACE , MARK R. WEINSTEIN;
P HILLIP E DWARD MORTON, Washington, DC.
J AMES LAWRENCE DAVIS, J R ., Ropes & Gray LLP, Palo
Alto, CA, for appellee SAP America, Inc. Also represented
by J AMES R ICHARD BATCHELDER , East Palo Alto, CA.
J ARED B OBROW , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Menlo Park, CA, for appellee eBay, Inc. Also represented
by WILL MELEHANI, San Francisco, CA.
J EFFREY J OHN C ATALANO, Smith, Gambrell Russell
LLP, Chicago, IL, for appellees Expedia, Inc., Homea-
way.com, Inc. Also represented by SARAH A. GOTTLIEB ,
Tampa, FL.
BRIAN R OBERT MATSUI, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Washington, DC, for appellees Squarespace, Inc., Wix.com,
LTD, Wix.com, Inc. Also represented by A DAM R. BRAUSA ,
T IMOTHY C. SAULSBURY, San Francisco, CA.
NAVEEN MODI, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,
for appellee Google LLC. Also represented by STEPHEN
B LAKE KINNAIRD ; J OSEPH PALYS, DANIEL Z EILBERGER .
______________________
Before L OURIE , T ARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
Express Mobile, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Ap-
peal Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes re-
view of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 that held all challenged
claims unpatentable. Because the Board applied an
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 2 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 2 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 3
erroneous construction of the claim term “style,” we vacate
the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings.
B ACKGROUND
I
The ’168 patent is titled “Browser Based Web Site Gen-
eration Tool and Run Time Engine,” assigned to Express
Mobile, and directed “to methods and apparatus for build-
ing a web site using a browser-based build engine.” U.S.
Patent No. 7,594,168 Title, col. 1 ll. 13–15. The Back-
ground explains that “[c]onventional web site construction
tools operate on traditional operating system platforms
and generate as output HTML (hyper text mark-up lan-
guage) and Script Code (e.g., JavaScript),” which have sev-
eral limitations. Id. col. 1 ll. 19–25. Some of these
limitations include that “a conventional web publishing ap-
plication can offer only a crude preview capability of what
a real web page will look like,” and “HTML and JavaScript
are incapable of reformatting text and scaling buttons or
images dynamically.” Id. col. 1 ll. 37–39, 48–49. The
’168 patent sought to answer these shortcomings through
a “browser based build engine . . . that includes a browser
based interface,” where the build engine runs “entirely in a
web based” environment, thus allowing “the web designer
[to] work[] directly on and with the final web page.” Id.
col. 1 l. 62, col. 2 ll. 39–43.
The browser-based system includes a user interface
that allows a web designer to build web pages by placing
“objects” on the page and associating them with a “style.”
See id. col. 30 l. 25–col. 32 l. 18. “When an image, text but-
ton or paragraph object is created, all the style settings for
the currently selected style are applied by the build engine
as part of the definition for the newly created object.” Id.
col. 32 ll. 6–9. “If a style is changed, all objects on all inter-
nal web pages that are utilizing that style are candidates
for being changed.” Id. col. 32 ll. 10–11.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 3 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 3 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 4
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
[1(pre)] A system for assembling a web site com-
prising:
[1(a)] a server comprising a build engine configured
to:
[1(b)] accept user input to create a web site, the web
site comprising a plurality of web pages, each web
page comprising a plurality of objects,
[1(c)] accept user input to associate a style with ob-
jects of the plurality of web pages, wherein each
web page comprises at least one button object or at
least one image object, and wherein the at least one
button object or at least one image object is associ-
ated with a style that includes values defining
transformations and time lines for the at least one
button object or at least one image object; and
[1(d)] wherein each web page is defined entirely by
each of the plurality of objects comprising that web
page and the style associated with the object,
[1(e)] produce a database with a multidimensional
array comprising the objects that comprise the web
site including data defining, for each object, the ob-
ject style, an object number, and an indication of
the web page that each object is part of, and
[1(f)] provide the database to a server accessible to
web browser;
[1(g)] wherein the database is produced such that a
web browser with access to a runtime engine is con-
figured to generate the web-site from the objects
and style data extracted from the provided data-
base.
See id. col. 64 l. 48–col. 65 l. 6.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 4 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 4 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 5
II
Meta Platforms, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Expedia, Inc.,
eBay Inc., Homeaway.com, Inc., Squarespace, Inc.,
Wix.com, Ltd., Wix.com, Inc., and Google LLC (collectively,
“Meta”) challenged the patentability of claims 1–4 and 6 of
the ’168 patent on two grounds, both of which included the
prior art references Reynolds1 and Lemay Web,2 among
other references not relevant to this appeal. Reynolds dis-
closes “techniques for creating and viewing material on the
World Wide Web in the form of an interactive Web book
[(‘ibook’)],” where its interactive ibook “is a self-extending,
self-sustaining information-redistributing Web robot,
which is resident on a data network such as the Internet,”
and its material “is preferably organized in the form of Web
pages.” J.A. 406 col. 1 ll. 6–8, 27–30. Lemay Web describes
a pre-built Java applet called “Animator.class” that, after
inserting a handful of lines into an HTML code to specify
the desired attributes of the animation, displays an ani-
mated image for a web page. See J.A. 503–05.
Relevant to this appeal, the parties contested the con-
struction of the term “style” in the IPR proceeding. Express
Mobile construed “style” as “a collection of one or more set-
tings that is defined separately from any single object but
can be associated with one or more objects.” J.A. 12. On
the other hand, Meta construed “style” as an “attribute
that defines the visual appearance of an object,” J.A. 183,
and contested Express Mobile’s proposed construction that
a “style” must be “separate[] from any single object.”
J.A. 12 (citation omitted). The Board determined that, be-
cause the prior art combinations met the claim language
even under Express Mobile’s more narrow proposed
1 U.S. Patent No. 6,052,717.
2 L AURA LEMAY, T EACH Y OURSELF WEB P UBLISHING
WITH HTML 3.2 IN A WEEK (3d ed. 1996).
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 5 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 5 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 6
construction, it “need not resolve the claim construction
dispute to render a decision on patentability.” Id.
In its petition, Meta asserted that Lemay Web teaches
the claim language “to associate a style with objects” in el-
ement 1(c). Specifically, Meta argued that “Lemay Web’s
disclosure of ‘entering HTML code’ for the attributes . . . to
‘define the objects’ visual appearance’ [teaches] the object’s
‘style,’” and Lemay Web’s “disclosure of ‘image animations
that include both graphical images and executable code (i.e.
the Java animation applet) to display the images in se-
quence’ teaches the recited ‘objects.’” J.A. 20–21 (citation
omitted). The Board agreed with Meta.
In its analysis for this limitation, the Board addressed
Express Mobile’s contention that Lemay Web’s attributes
in the HTML code were not separate from Lemay Web’s al-
leged “object.” Specifically, the Board agreed with Meta
that “the attributes are defined separately from the object
because they are in an HTML file, which is stored sepa-
rately from the file containing the object.” J.A. 21. The
Board continued to explain how Lemay Web discloses
(1) that the settings selected in the HTML code are passed
to the applet, meaning the HTML code is not “an integral
part of the object itself”; (2) that a pre-built Java applet
plus “a few lines of HTML” code can be used “to create an-
imation effects without touching a line of Java code,” illus-
trating that the Java applet “Animator.class” is a separate
file from the HTML file that calls it to create the animation;
and (3) that the image files that are displayed as the ani-
mation object are separate from the HTML file. J.A. 21–22
(citation omitted). The Board also dismissed Express Mo-
bile’s contention that, “[w]ithout the APPLET tag block [in
the HTML file], there would be no applet,” because the
Board determined that the applet can be “independent of
the applet tag block, even if the tag is required to invoke
the applet in a web page.” J.A. 22 (first alteration in origi-
nal).
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 6 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 6 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 7
Finally, the Board addressed Express Mobile’s argu-
ment that the applet tag block is not defined separately
from the object because “[t]he APPLET tag block only per-
tains to a single object—the specific applet being instanti-
ated—and the PARAMs inside that tag block pertain only
to that specific applet.” Id. (alteration in original). The
Board reasoned that, according to Express Mobile’s own
“proposed construction, a style—‘a collection of one or more
settings that is defined separately from any single object
but can be associated with one or more objects’—can be as-
sociated with just one object.” Id. The Board supported
this finding by pointing to a passage from the ’168 patent’s
specification that discloses how the values for a style of an
object can be individually set through user input, which it
considered “similar to” Lemay Web’s disclosure that a user
assigns values for various parameters of an animated Java
object. J.A. 23 (citing ’168 patent col. 32 ll. 12–18). Based
on this understanding of Express Mobile’s proposed con-
struction, the Board found that the fact that Lemay Web’s
alleged “style” is capable of only associating with a single
“object” did not preclude the finding that the prior art com-
bination taught the challenged claim limitation.
The Board ultimately found all challenged claims of the
’168 patent unpatentable. Express Mobile appeals. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Express Mobile contends that the Board
erred in its analysis of two claim limitations: (1) limita-
tion 1(c) due to its erroneous construction of the term
“style”; and (2) limitation 1(g) because substantial evi-
dence does not support the Board’s finding that the prior
art combination taught “a runtime engine [] configured to
generate the web-site from [] objects and style data.” The
claim construction of “style” is dispositive of this appeal.
Claim construction is ultimately a question of law that
we review de novo, as are the intrinsic-evidence aspects of
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 7 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 7 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 8
a claim-construction analysis. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm
Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2021). But we review any
underlying fact findings on extrinsic evidence for substan-
tial evidence. Id.
Express Mobile contends that the Board erred when it
implicitly construed the use of the term “or” in Express Mo-
bile’s proposed construction of “style” to refer to alternative
choices, and thus also erred in finding that Lemay Web’s
disclosed attributes in an HTML code teach the claimed
“style” even though the attributes are only associated with
one “object.”3 We agree with Express Mobile.
The Board did “not resolve the claim construction dis-
pute” for the term “style” in its Final Written Decision.
J.A. 12. Instead, after acknowledging the parties’ dispute,
it applied Express Mobile’s proposed construction because
it found “that the asserted combination teaches ‘style’ un-
der [Express Mobile]’s proposed construction.” Id. In per-
forming its obviousness analysis, however, the Board
implicitly construed the term “or” contrary to Express
3 Meta contends on appeal that Express Mobile for-
feited its argument that the use of “or” in its proposed con-
struction of the term “style” meant that a “style” can be
associated with a single “object,” but must also be capable
of being associated with more than one “object.” We disa-
gree. First, the Board understood Express Mobile to argue
that Lemay Web did not teach the claimed “style” because
a “style” needed to be capable of applying to more than one
“object” and addressed this argument, as we discuss
throughout this opinion. Second, Meta itself concedes that
there are at least two places in the record where this issue
was raised before the Board, even if Meta contests how de-
veloped the record is. Between Meta’s necessary acknowl-
edgement of the record and the Board’s understanding and
consideration of the issue in its Final Written Decision, we
conclude that Express Mobile did not forfeit its arguments.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 8 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 8 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 9
Mobile’s meaning to find that Lemay Web taught the
claimed “style,” despite Express Mobile’s express argument
that Lemay Web’s alleged “style” does not read on the claim
term because it only applies to one of Lemay Web’s alleged
“objects.” J.A. 22–23 (“[Express Mobile] further argues the
Applet tag block is not defined separately from the object
because ‘[t]he APPLET tag block only pertains to a single
object—the specific applet being instantiated—and the
PARAMs inside that tag block pertain only to that specific
applet.’ We disagree with [Express Mobile]’s assertion be-
cause, according to its own proposed construction, a style—
‘a collection of one or more settings that is defined sepa-
rately from any single object but can be associated with one
or more objects’—can be associated with just one object.”
(second alteration in original) (citation omitted)); see also
Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049, 1055–56
(Fed. Cir. 2024) (“If the outcome of the analysis of the claim
term establishes the scope (e.g., boundaries) and meaning
of the patented subject matter, the court (or the Board) []
mostly likely construed the claim.”).4 The Board supported
its implicit construction by pointing to the emphasized
4 Express Mobile also argues on appeal that the
Board erred by refusing to explicitly construe “style” when
it was clear the parties disputed the term, which inde-
pendently warrants vacatur. We disagree. The Board’s er-
ror here comes not from its decision to resolve the claim
construction dispute only to the extent necessary to com-
plete its patentability analysis, as allowed by our case law.
See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe only
those terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy.” (cleaned up) (citation
omitted)). Rather, the Board erred after it resolved to use
Express Mobile’s proposed construction, when it implicitly
misconstrued “or” in the construction of “style.”
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 9 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 9 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 10
language in the following passage from the ’168 patent’s
specification:
If a style is changed, all objects on all internal web
pages that are utilizing that style are candidates
for being changed to those new values at 106.
Flags are kept for every possible style setting for
each object. If a given object is edited through the
text button, image, or interaction menus or other in-
terface objects of the panel 400, the flags are set for
any setting that are [sic] changed. If that style is
subsequently changed, only those settings that have
not had their flags set will be changed for any given
object.
’168 patent col. 32 ll. 10–18 (emphasis added); J.A. 23 (cit-
ing ’168 patent col. 32 ll. 12–18). Read in context, however,
this passage in the ’168 patent’s specification does not dis-
close using a style. Rather, it discloses how a user can for-
mat an object to override the application of a style to an
object.
A full analysis of the intrinsic evidence reveals that the
Board’s construction of “style” was erroneous. In conduct-
ing a claim construction analysis, “[w]e begin, as we often
do, with the claim language.” Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics,
Ltd., 81 F.4th 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The
first time “style” is used in claim 1 is in limitation 1(c) as
part of the element “to associate a style with objects of the
plurality of web pages.” ’168 patent col. 64 ll. 53–54 (em-
phases added). The plain meaning of this language implies
that a style is able to be associated with a plurality of ob-
jects.5 To be sure, “style” is also used in other elements of
5 That our case law “explain[s] that the indefinite ar-
ticle ‘a’ means ‘one or more’” does not change this analysis.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 10 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 10 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 11
claim 1, including later in limitation 1(c) to claim that “at
least one button object or at least one image object is asso-
ciated with a style” and in limitation 1(d) to claim that
“each web page is defined entirely by each of the plurality
of objects comprising that web page and the style associ-
ated with the object,” implying that one “style” can be ap-
plied to one “object.” Id. col. 64 ll. 56–62. But this is what
Express Mobile’s proposed construction contemplates—a
single style must be capable of both (1) being associated
with a single object, and (2) being associated with more
than one object.
While Express Mobile’s proposed claim construction to
the Board could have more clearly elucidated this concept,
our case law does not support a per se rule that the use of
the word “or” must always be treated as an alternative in
the context of claim construction. See Intel Corp. v. Qual-
comm Inc., No. 22-1046, 2023 WL 4196901, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
June 27, 2023) (non-precedential) (explaining that “[w]hile
‘or’ can refer to alternatives, that is not a hard-and-fast
rule”). Indeed, we have adopted constructions that use the
word “or” similarly to how Express Mobile has used it in
this case. See, e.g., id.
Because “[t]he claims . . . do not stand alone,” Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1315, we now “turn to the patent’s specification
for help[, which] . . . provides some useful insight into the
claim term’s meaning.” Apple, 81 F.4th at 1358. The most
Apple, 81 F.4th at 1359 (quoting Salazar v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 64 F.4th 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). Nothing in the
claims or specification limits the invention from associat-
ing more than one “style” with a plurality of “objects”; we
merely determine here that where there is a singular
“style” claimed, that “style” must be capable of associating
with a plurality of “objects.”
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 11 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 11 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 12
pertinent disclosure in the specification on how style is
used in the invention explains:
FIG. 13 shows a process for implementing text
button, image and paragraph style settings (20 of
FIG. 3). The initial values for all the settings in-
side a parent pop-up window and associated child
pop-up windows, for a particular style, can be set
from the JavaScript database at 103. The set-
tings can include: image object styles, text button
object styles and paragraph object styles.
The following settings can be initialized and
changed for image object styles.
. . .
Referring again to FIG. 13, upon detecting the
completion of editing an image, text button or par-
agraph style, the panel’s JavaScript calls a build
engine method and passes the required values.
The build engine updates its internal database
and sets any necessary feature flags at 104.
When an image, text button or paragraph ob-
ject is created, all the style settings for the cur-
rently selected style are applied by the build
engine as part of the definition for the newly cre-
ated object at 105.
If a style is changed, all objects on all internal
web pages that are utilizing that style are candi-
dates for being changed to those new values
at 106. Flags are kept for every possible style set-
ting for each object. If a given object is edited
through the text button, image, or interaction
menus or other interface objects of the panel 400,
the flags are set for any setting that are changed.
If that style is subsequently changed, only those
settings that have not had their flags set will be
changed for any given object.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 12 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 12 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 13
’168 patent col. 30 l. 25–col. 32 l. 18. Nowhere in this de-
scription of the invention’s use of styles does it imply that
a style is a formatting tool that can only be used for one
object at a time; indeed, the plain reading of the specifica-
tion implies that a style must be capable of being applied
to multiple objects to enable uniform formatting of objects
on one or more web pages through the application and al-
teration of a style. Nor does Meta point to any teaching in
the specification to imply otherwise.
The claim language and the specification, taken to-
gether and in context, support that the claimed “style”
must be capable of being applied to both one and more than
one “object.” Because we ultimately conclude that Express
Mobile’s proposed construction, with “or” properly inter-
preted, is more in line with the intrinsic evidence, we reject
the Board’s construction of “style.” Accordingly, we vacate
the Board’s Final Written Decision and remand for further
proceedings in view of the correct claim construction.6 See
Apple, 81 F.4th at 1359–60 (citing Kaken Pharm. Co., Ltd.
v. Iancu, 952 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he ap-
propriate course in this case, as in so many others involving
6 Meta alternatively contends that the Board found
that Lemay Web taught a “style” associated with multiple
“objects.” See Oral Arg. at 21:12–24:10, https://oralargu-
ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=23-1646_
03072025.mp3 (relying on J.A. 23). We disagree. Read in
context, the portion of the Final Written Decision that
Meta points to for this proposition is related to the Board’s
reliance on the similarity of the disclosure in Lemay Web
to the portion of the ’168 patent’s specification that de-
scribes how to override the application of style to an object,
discussed above. It may be that under the correct claim
construction, the Board finds that Lemay Web teaches the
claimed “style”; however, that is still an open fact question
for the Board to decide in the first instance.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 13 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 13 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 14
[the declination to adopt] a Board claim construction, is to
vacate the Board’s decision and remand the matter.”)).7
As the Board’s erroneous construction of “style” infects
the remainder of its analysis, including its analysis of lim-
itation 1(g), which Express Mobile also pressed on appeal,
we do not resolve the parties’ various arguments on this
claim limitation. We vacate the Board’s finding that the
prior art combination teaches limitation 1(g) and remand
for further proceedings using the proper construction of
“style.”
C ONCLUSION
We have considered Meta’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
adopt Express Mobile’s proposed construction of “style” as
“a collection of one or more settings that is defined sepa-
rately from any single object but can be associated with one
or more objects,” with the understanding that “associated
with one or more” means capable of being associated with
both one object and more than one object. Accordingly, we
vacate the Board’s Final Written Decision and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
7 As a “style” must be capable of being applied to
more than one “object,” separateness between a “style” and
an “object” is also implied. The Board considered whether
Lemay Web’s alleged “style” was separate from the alleged
“object” in its Final Written Decision, see J.A. 19–23; how-
ever, how the Board evaluated what constitutes separate-
ness in the prior art software is less than clear. See Oral
Arg. at 5:06–10:19, 14:49–16:09. On remand, the Board
should further explain any decision it reaches on whether
the prior art combination teaches an alleged “style” that is
separate from the alleged “object.”
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 14 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 14 of 15 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. META PLATFORMS , INC. 15
C OSTS
Costs to Appellant.
Case: 23-1646 Document: 82 Page: 15 Filed: 06/17/2025

-- 15 of 15 --