Express Mobile, Inc. v. Godaddy.com, LLC

N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GODADDY.COM, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2265
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH,
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
______________________
Decided: April 2, 2025
______________________
J AMES R ICHARD NUTTALL, Steptoe LLP, Chicago, IL,
argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
R OBERT KAPPERS, CANDICE JAESUN KWARK.
BRIAN W. LA CORTE , Ballard Spahr LLP, Phoenix, AZ,
argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
A NDREW HENSLEY, MITCHELL LEE T URBENSON; B ETH
MOSKOW -SCHNOLL, Wilmington, DE.
______________________
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 1 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 2
Before L OURIE , T ARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
T ARANTO, Circuit Judge.
Express Mobile, Inc. owns five patents at issue here.
The first two are U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 and its de-
scendant No. 7,594,168 (the ’397 patent family), which
describe and claim systems and methods for building
websites. The other three are U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755
and its descendants Nos. 9,471,287 and 9,928,044 (the
’755 patent family), which describe and claim systems and
methods for displaying website information, integrating
widgets, and programming, especially on mobile devices.
In 2019, Express sued GoDaddy.com, LLC in district
court, alleging infringement of those patents. The district
court construed a claim phrase “runtime engine” in the
’397 family to require that it perform the function of
“read[ing] information from the database” (to obtain
material for building a website). Based on that construc-
tion, the district court granted GoDaddy summary judg-
ment of noninfringement. Asserted claims of the ’755
family went to trial, and the jury found noninfringement.
The district court denied Express’s requests for judgment
as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial.
On Express’s appeal, we reverse the district court’s
construction of the claim phrase “runtime engine” and
vacate the summary judgment of noninfringement of the
’397 family’s claims. We affirm the district court’s denial
of post-judgment relief from the jury’s verdict of nonin-
fringement for the ’755 family. We remand the case for
further proceedings regarding the ’397 family.
I
A
The two patents in the ’397 family, which share a
specification (so we cite only the ’397 specification), dis-
close website development tools and methods, including a
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 2 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 3
“runtime engine” that generates websites by using infor-
mation, such as objects and styles, from a database. ’397
patent, col. 1, lines 11–49; id., col. 2, lines 31–41; id., col.
5, lines 48–62; id., col. 65, lines 58–63. For present pur-
poses, the two patents’ first claims are representative.
Claim 1 of the ’397 patent recites:
1. A method to allow users to produce Internet
websites on and for computers having a browser
and a virtual machine capable of generating dis-
plays, said method comprising:
(a) presenting a viewable menu having a user se-
lectable panel of settings describing elements on a
website, said panel of settings being presented
through a browser on a computer adapted to ac-
cept one or more of said selectable settings in said
panel as inputs therefrom, and where at least one
of said user selectable settings in said panel corre-
sponds to commands to said virtual machine;
(b) generating a display in accordance with one or
more user selected settings substantially contem-
poraneously with the selection thereof;
(c) storing information representative of said one
or more user selected settings in a database;
(d) generating a website at least in part by re-
trieving said information representative of said
one or more user selected settings stored in said
database; and
(e) building one or more web pages to generate
said website from at least a portion of said data-
base and at least one run time file, where said at
least one run time file utilizes information
stored in said database to generate virtual ma-
chine commands for the display of at least a por-
tion of said one or more web pages.
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 3 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 3 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 4
Id., col. 65, line 44, through col. 66, line 2 (emphasis
added).
Claim 1 of the ’168 patent recites:
1. A system for assembling a web site comprising:
a server comprising a build engine configured to:
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,
accept user input to associate a style with objects
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
associated with a style that includes values defin-
ing transformations and time lines for the at least
one button object or at least one image object; and
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,
produce a database with a multidimensional array
comprising the objects that comprise the web site
including data defining, for each object, the object
style, an object number, and an indication of the
web page that each object is part of, and
provide the database to a server accessible to web
browser;
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 ob-
jects and style data extracted from the
provided database.
’168 patent, col. 64, line 48, through col. 65, line 6 (em-
phasis added).
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 4 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 4 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 5
The three patents in the ’755 family, which share a
specification (so we cite only the ’755 specification), dis-
close systems and methods for displaying website infor-
mation and incorporating widgets in a display, and
making programming modifications, especially for mobile
devices. ’755 patent, Abstract; id., col. 1, lines 7–9, 34–67.
The patents disclose techniques that allow for the display
of website information on different devices by generating
both device-independent code (an Application) and device-
dependent code (a Player). Id., col. 1, line 51, through col.
2, line 3; id., col. 37, lines 5–6, 15–35.
Claim 1 of the ’755 patent, which is representative for
present purposes, recites:
1. A system for generating code to provide content
on a display of a device, said system comprising:
computer memory storing a registry of:
a) symbolic names required for evoking one
or more web components each related to a set of
inputs and outputs of a web service obtainable
over a network, where the symbolic names are
character strings that do not contain either a per-
sistent address or pointer to an output value ac-
cessible to the web service, and
b) the address of the web service;
an authoring tool configured to:
define a user interface (UI) object for presentation
on the display, where said UI object corresponds
to the web component included in said registry se-
lected from the group consisting of an input of the
web service and an output of the web service,
access said computer memory to select the sym-
bolic name corresponding to the web component of
the defined UI object,
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 5 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 5 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 6
associate the selected symbolic name with the de-
fined UI object,
produce an Application including the selected
symbolic name of the defined UI object, where
said Application is a device-independent code, and
produce a Player, where said Player is a de-
vice-dependent code;
such that, when the Application and Player are
provided to the device and executed on the device,
and when a user of the device provides one or
more input values associated with an input sym-
bolic name to an input of defined UI object,
1) the device provides the user provided one or
more input values and corresponding input sym-
bolic name to the web service,
2) the web service utilizes the input symbolic
name and the user provided one or more input
values for generating one or more output values
having an associated output symbolic name,
3) said Player receives the output symbolic name
and corresponding one or more output values and
provides instructions for a display of the device to
present an output value in the defined UI object.
Id., col. 37, lines 5–46 (emphases added).
B
On October 11, 2019, Express sued GoDaddy alleging
infringement of the five patents. By August 2022, the
claims at issue were claims 1, 2, 3, 11, and 37 of the ’397
patent; claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’168 patent; claims 1, 3,
12, 16, and 22 of the ’755 patent; claims 1 and 13 of the
’287 patent; and claims 1, 11, 13, 17, and 19 of the ’044
patent. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 1 n.1,
Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 6 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 6 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 7
01937-MFK, (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2022) ECF No. 261 (J.A. 29
n.1) (Summary Judgment Opinion).
In June 2021, the district court construed multiple
claim terms, Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
No. 1:19-cv-01937-RGA, 2021 WL 2209868, at *5–13
(June 1, 2021) (Claim Construction Opinion) (J.A. 10–25),
and in August 2022, the district court construed two more
claim terms, Summary Judgment Opinion, at 4–14 (J.A.
32–42). Relevant to the ’397 family, the district court
construed a “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 web-
site.” Claim Construction Opinion, at *8–9 (J.A. 16–17)
(emphasis added). It also construed “at least one run time
file / one or more run time files” to include a runtime
engine, i.e., as “one or more files, including a run time
engine, that are downloaded or created when a browser is
pointed to a web page or website.” Id. at *6 (J.A. 11).
Relevant to the ’755 family, the court construed “device-
dependent code” as “code that is specific to the operating
system, programming language, or platform of a device,”
id. at *5 (J.A. 10), “Player” as “device-specific code which
contains instructions of a device and which is separate
from the Application,” Summary Judgment Opinion, at 9–
14 (J.A. 37–42), and “registry” as “a database that is used
for computing functionality,” Claim Construction Opinion,
at *9–10 (J.A. 17–19). The court provided no construction
of “symbolic name(s).” Id. at *11–12 (J.A. 22–23).
In its August 8, 2022 Summary Judgment Opinion,
the district court, among other rulings, granted GoDaddy
summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted
claims of the ’397 family. Summary Judgment Opinion,
at 22–27 (J.A. 50–55). Express pointed to certain JavaS-
cript files in GoDaddy’s accused products as meeting the
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 7 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 7 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 8
“runtime engine” claim limitation.1 Id. GoDaddy, relying
on the court’s claim constructions, contended that those
JavaScript files did not “read information from the data-
base” and therefore could not be runtime engines. Id. at
25 (J.A. 53). The district court agreed with GoDaddy. Id.
at 25–27 (J.A. 53–55).
From February 27, 2023, to March 3, 2023, the dis-
trict court held a jury trial on infringement of the asserted
claims of the ’755 family. In its verdict, the jury found
that GoDaddy did not infringe any of the asserted claims.
After the jury verdict, Express renewed its unsuccessful
pre-verdict motion for JMOL and in the alternative
sought a new trial, but the district court denied the mo-
tion. See generally Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com,
LLC, 680 F. Supp. 3d 517 (D. Del. July 5, 2023) (Post-
Trial Opinion) (J.A. 120–38).
Express timely appealed on August 3, 2023. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II
Claim construction is a question of law that we decide
de novo, with any underlying factual findings made by the
district court reviewed for clear error. Teva Pharmaceuti-
cals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 324–28
(2015). When construing a claim, we look to the claim
language, specification, and prosecution history, as well
1 Express accused several other GoDaddy files of
meeting the “runtime engine” claim limitation, but the
district court found those files non-infringing. Id. at 23–
25 (J.A. 51–53). On appeal, Express discusses only the
JavaScript files. We leave it to the district court to de-
termine whether the findings about other files in the
GoDaddy accused products should be reconsidered in light
of the change in claim construction we now require.
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 8 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 8 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 9
as any relevant extrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
We follow the general standards for summary judg-
ment, JMOL, and new trials stated by the regional circuit
containing the district court (here, the Third Circuit). See
Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 944 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); Teva Pharmaceutical In-
dustries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 661
F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); Power
Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Internation-
al, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted). As relevant here, we review a JMOL denial de
novo, and the JMOL standard is whether “there is insuffi-
cient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find for
the nonmovant,” accounting for who has the burden of
persuasion. Amgen, 944 F.3d at 1333 (citations omitted).
We review the denial of a new trial motion for “abuse of
discretion,” Power Integrations, 843 F.3d at 1326 (citation
omitted), and “[t]he decision to grant or deny a new trial
is committed to the discretion of the district court, which
grants a new trial only where ‘a miscarriage of justice
would result if the verdict were to stand’ or where the
verdict ‘shocks [the] conscience.’” Amgen, 944 F.3d at
1333 (alteration in original) (quoting Williamson v. Con-
solidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1352–53 (3d Cir.
1991)).
A
Express contends that, for the ’397 family, the district
court erred in its construction of “runtime engine.” See
generally Express Opening Br. at 18–27. The district
court construed “runtime engine” to mean a “file that is
executed at runtime that reads information from the
database and generates commands to display a web page
or website.” Claim Construction Opinion, at *8–9 (J.A.
16–17) (emphasis added). Express argues here, as it did
in the district court, that “runtime engine” should be
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 9 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 9 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 10
given a broader construction, i.e., to mean a “file that is
executed at runtime that utilizes information from the
database and generates commands to display a web page
or website.” Id. (emphasis added); see Express Opening
Br. at 18–27. The district court, in granting summary
judgment of noninfringement, relied entirely on its adopt-
ed construction, not, in the alternative, on Express’s
proposed construction. We agree with Express’s proposed
claim construction and therefore reverse the district
court’s claim construction, vacate the summary judgment
of noninfringement, and remand for further proceedings.
1
We look first to the language of the specific phrase at
issue and its surrounding language in the claim. Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1314; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It is undisputed that
the phrase “runtime engine” itself does not explain what a
runtime engine must do, other than perform some func-
tion at runtime (i.e., when a computer file is executed).
The surrounding claim language, however, does indicate
some specific functions of a runtime engine.
The claims expressly recite “at least one run time file”
(which, according to the court’s construction of “run time
files,” includes “a run time engine,” see Claim Construc-
tion Opinion, at *6 (J.A. 11)) that “utilizes information
stored in said database,” ’397 patent, claim 1 (emphasis
added), as well as a “runtime engine” that is “configured
to generate the web-site from the objects and style data
extracted from the provided database,” ’168 patent,
claim 1 (emphasis added). The highlighted language is
broader than the district court’s construction (as the
district court and GoDaddy understood that construction).
The language requires no more than that the runtime
engine “utilize[]” information from the database or use
data that has been “extracted from” the database, without
saying how the data came into the runtime engine’s
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 10 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 10 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 11
possession or what entity does the extracting. It does not
further limit the runtime engine to interacting with a
database in a specific way to obtain data. In particular, it
is distinctly broader than a construction requiring that
the runtime engine itself read from the database.
2
Contrary to GoDaddy’s argument, see GoDaddy Re-
sponse Br. at 20–22, the specification does not support
narrowing the claim construction to incorporate the
district court’s reading requirement. The specification
does describe embodiments in which a runtime engine (or
runtime file) receives information from a database in a
particular way: reading. See, e.g., ’397 patent, col. 5, lines
59–62 (“The run time engine then begins to read the
database . . . .”); id., col. 45, lines 44–57 (“FIG. 29 shows
the techniques employed by the run time engine to read
the external database . . . .”); id., fig. 29 (displaying a step
in which a “runtime engine reads a param value which
points to the database and initiates the read operation”)
(capitalization normalized). But the claim language on its
face is broader, as discussed above, and the specification’s
descriptions of reading do go beyond describing examples
of how the runtime engine can acquire the data.
“[W]hile claims are to be construed in light of the
specification, they are not necessarily limited by the
specification.” Enercon GmbH v. International Trade
Commission, 151 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (cita-
tion omitted). Features of particular embodiments are
generally not read into the claims where the claim lan-
guage is on its face broader. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1323; see, e.g., IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank
Enterprises, Inc., 130 F.4th 998, 1003–04 (Fed. Cir. 2025);
see also Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that, to limit the
scope of a claim term to a distinct subset of what its
language otherwise covers, the intrinsic evidence must do
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 11 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 11 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 12
so clearly). Here, GoDaddy has identified nothing in the
specification that would override the breadth of the claim
language to require reading of the database by the
runtime engine.
3
The prosecution history also does not overcome the
claim language’s breadth to support the district court’s
limiting a runtime engine’s method of obtaining infor-
mation from a database to reading the database. In the
passage from the prosecution history (of the ’397 patent)
relied on by GoDaddy, Express described a runtime
engine as “reading and interpreting the external database
and then building the web pages dynamically.” J.A. 616;
J.A. 625–26 (explaining that at runtime, the “runtime
engine of the claimed invention is downloaded over a
network and, when initialized, downloads the . . . data-
base,” and that the claimed invention displays content by
“reading each of the . . . attributes from the database and
combining them individually with the draw command to
form a virtual machine command”); see GoDaddy Re-
sponse Br. at 21–22 (citing prosecution history). Under-
stood in its context, Express’s statements are not fairly
understood as disclaiming or disavowing the runtime
engine’s receipt of information from the database other
than by itself reading the database.
When Express described its claimed runtime engine
as “reading,” it was not making a point about how the
runtime engine obtains database information. Rather, it
was distinguishing a prior-art reference, Faustini, as non-
anticipatory because Faustini, unlike Express’s own
invention, did not teach “production of web pages,” J.A.
616, or the use of an “external database,” i.e., a “database
of user settings,” at all, J.A. 616, 624, see also J.A. 625–26
(highlighting the claimed invention’s ability to generate
“many totally different web pages . . . with the same
runtime engine” and its “potential to greatly decrease the
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 12 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 12 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 13
size of files required to display some types of web pages”
as improvements over the prior art). Consistent with that
explanation, moreover, Express amended its claims to
recite “at least one run time file . . . operating to utilize
information” stored in a database, see J.A. 629–31 (em-
phasis added), adopting a phrase plainly not restricted to
the runtime engine’s reading the database.
4
GoDaddy next points out that several tribunals, i.e.,
“the District of Delaware on two separate occasions, the
Northern District of California, and the [Patent Trial and
Appeal Board],” have considered Express’s ’397 family
and construed a “runtime engine” as “reading” from a
database. GoDaddy Response Br. at 18–20. But those
constructions do not bind us. And GoDaddy has not
identified anything in the claim-construction analyses set
forth by the cited tribunals that undermines the above
claim-construction analysis.
Nor has GoDaddy persuasively supported its brief
contention, id. at 19, that Express “should be estopped”
from pressing its current position because, in an inter
partes review involving the ’168 patent, it did not argue
against the Board’s use of the district courts’ construc-
tions that required the runtime engine to “read[]” data
from the database or to “facilitate[] the retrieval of infor-
mation from the database.” See Facebook, Inc. v. Express
Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01226, 2023 WL 157632, at *4–5
(P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2023) (IPR2021-01226 Decision). In
particular, GoDaddy has not shown that Express gained
any advantage from its choice not to press its used-by
construction in the Board proceeding. The present dis-
pute between constructions did not arise in the inter
partes review, because the challenger (Facebook), making
its own choices, did not argue for the used-by construc-
tion. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
7,594,168 B2, at 15–18, Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile,
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 13 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 13 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 14
Inc., IPR2021-01226 (July 6, 2021). The Board noted
that, although there were some interpretive differences
actually raised (not the present difference), those inter-
pretive disputes made no difference to the Board’s ruling,
see IPR2021-01226 Decision, at *4–5—which went against
Express, all the challenged claims being held unpatenta-
ble, id. at *21. And although Express has appealed that
ruling, no issue is presented in that appeal about the
construction of “runtime engine.” See generally Opening
Brief for Appellant Express Mobile, Inc., Express Mobile,
Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 23-1646, ECF No. 46
(Oct. 27, 2023); Brief for Appellees, id., ECF No. 50 (Feb.
5, 2024). In these circumstances, we do not find Express
to be estopped from presenting its claim-construction
position here.
* * *
Because we reverse the district court’s claim construc-
tion of the term “runtime engine,” we vacate the grant of
summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted
claims of the ’397 family, which is based on an erroneous
claim construction. We remand the case for additional
proceedings on infringement of the asserted claims when
properly construed. In the respect disputed here, the
claims of both patents simply require the runtime engine
to use the information from the database.
B
In regard to the ’755 family, Express argues that the
district court erred in denying its request for JMOL or, in
the alternative, a new trial. Express Opening Br. at 40–
59. We understand Express, in this court, to make three
main arguments. One relates to claim construction. The
other two arguments challenge the jury verdict—a claim-
by-claim general noninfringement verdict, without limita-
tion-by-limitation findings, J.A. 113—as insufficiently
supported by the evidence. The insufficiency arguments
focus on two groups of limitations, though Express would
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 14 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 14 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 15
have to prevail on both—as well as what may be other
bases for a jury finding of noninfringement—in order for
it to prevail on its insufficient-evidence challenge to the
verdict. Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc.,
334 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We reject Express’s
challenges regarding the ’755 family.
1
Express asserts that, at trial, GoDaddy “contradicted
the district court’s constructions” of several claim terms—
specifically, that GoDaddy pressed improper understand-
ings of “platform” and “database,” words that appear in
the district court’s claim constructions of “device-
dependent code” and “registry,” respectively. Express
Opening Br. at 40. This contention is, in essence, a com-
plaint about a need for further claim construction, about
improper party argument, or about improper testimony.
But those are precisely the kinds of complaints that must
be made before a trial ends. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard
Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1320–21 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Com-
puserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2001))
(“[T]he parties cannot reserve issues of claim construction
for the stage of post-trial motions.”)); ATEN International
Co. v. Uniclass Technology Co., 932 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (quoting CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Medical
Systems, Inc., 424 F.3d 1168, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(“[T]here is no ground for reversal since there was no
objection to the expert testimony as to claim construc-
tion.”)). Yet Express makes no assertions (and the record
before us does not indicate) that it sought additional claim
construction or that it objected to GoDaddy’s arguments
or witness testimony during trial. Express Opening Br. at
40–59. Express has not shown an abuse of discretion in
the district court’s denial of a new trial. See Post-Trial
Opinion, at 525–28 (J.A. 127–32).
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 15 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 15 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 16
2
Express argues that the evidence compelled a finding
that the GoDaddy code Express relied on to meet the
“Player” limitation actually does so. Express Opening Br.
40–55. We disagree.
The district court construed “Player” to mean “device-
specific code which contains instructions of a device and
which is separate from the Application.” Summary
Judgment Opinion, at 9–14 (J.A. 37–42). The court
treated “device-specific code” and “device-dependent code”
as synonymous, see id. at 27 (J.A. 55), and neither party
challenges that conclusion, see, e.g., Express Opening Br.
at 40 (asserting that a Player is a device-dependent code),
GoDaddy Response Br. at 39 (arguing that there is no
device-dependent Player in the accused products). And
the district court construed “device-dependent code” to
mean “code that is specific to the operating system, pro-
gramming language, or platform of a device.” Claim
Construction Opinion, at *5 (J.A. 10).
In the accused products, Express identified, as meet-
ing the Player limitation, certain portions of GoDaddy
code that detect which browser type is being used and
then use that information to format a web page displayed
on the browser. See, e.g., J.A. 17594, 54:18–55:11 (Go-
Daddy’s witness explaining GoDaddy’s process for ensur-
ing its software works across different resolutions and
web browsers); J.A. 17458, page 642, lines 3–5 (GoDaddy’s
expert explaining that its code “allows the program to
adjust slightly depending on what browser it’s displayed
in”); J.A. 17468, page 683, line 25, through page 684, line
18 (GoDaddy’s expert agreeing that the identified code
determines the type of browser used and may use the
browser type to change the website display). Express
contends that a browser is a “platform” in the above-
quoted claim construction, so the accused code had to be
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 16 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 16 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 17
found to meet the “Player” limitation. Express Opening
Br. at 40–41.
The jury could reasonably find against that analysis.
GoDaddy’s expert and a named inventor of the ’755 patent
both testified that a Player is not a browser. See, e.g., J.A.
17472, page 698, line 15, through page 699, line 23 (Go-
Daddy’s expert testimony); J.A. 17345, page 194, lines 15–
17 (named inventor’s testimony). GoDaddy’s expert also
explained that GoDaddy’s accused files, which are JavaS-
cript files, are not device-specific, can run across different
browsers and devices, and therefore do not meet the
“Player” limitation. See J.A. 17457, page 637, line 4,
through page 639, line 18; J.A. 17458, page 641, line 16,
through page 642, line 8. And to the extent that Express
insists that the term “platform” in the claim construction
must cover a browser, it is arguing about an issue that, in
the absence of a further claim construction (not requested
at all or in a timely manner), is a factual one for the jury,
see, e.g., VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 87 F.4th
1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2023), and Express has not shown
that rejection of its position on that issue would be unrea-
sonable. We therefore see no reversible error in the
denial of JMOL of infringement.
3
Express argues that the evidence compelled a finding
that GoDaddy’s accused products met the “registry” or
“symbolic names” limitations of the ’755 family patents.
Express Opening Br. at 55–57. We disagree.
The district court construed “registry” to mean “a da-
tabase that is used for computing functionality,” Claim
Construction Opinion, at *9–10 (J.A. 17–19), a construc-
tion the parties do not contest. The court provided no
construction of “symbolic names,” id. at *11–12 (J.A. 22–
23), but the claim language expressly states that symbolic
names are stored in a registry and are required for evok-
ing one or more web components, ’755 patent, col. 37,
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 17 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 17 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 18
lines 5–9. The parties agree that “the existence of a
‘registry’ is required for the ‘symbolic name’ claim element
to be infringed, and vice versa.” Express Opening Br. at
57 (citing J.A. 21739 (GoDaddy’s opposition to JMOL)).
Express asserts that there was insufficient evidence for
the jury to find the accused products not to meet these
limitations. Id. at 56–57. But the district court conclud-
ed, and we agree, that “[t]he trial record demonstrates
that the jury received sufficient evidence from which it
could reasonably find that GoDaddy’s products do not
infringe.” Post-Trial Opinion, at 528 (J.A. 132).
There was substantial evidence to support a finding
that GoDaddy’s products did not meet the “registry”
limitation. For instance, GoDaddy’s expert explained that
what Express identified in the accused products as the
registry was an unstructured file that could not be a
database or, therefore, a registry, J.A. 17460, page 650,
line 23, through page 651, line 4, and Express’s expert
admitted that he did not check what was in the accused
registry, J.A. 17380, page 332, lines 12, through page 333,
line 10. Likewise, there was substantial evidence for the
jury to find that the accused products did not practice the
“symbolic names” limitation. In particular, GoDaddy’s
witnesses testified that the accused “symbolic names”
were not stored in any database, J.A. 17436, page 553,
line 24, through page 554, line 6, and did not evoke web
components, see, e.g., J.A. 17347, page 558, lines 1–8
(GoDaddy’s employee rebutting the assertion that “divs,”
a type of HTML element, constitute symbolic names since
they are not stored); J.A. 17443, page 581, lines 9–13
(explaining that the accused symbolic name “YouTube”
does not, on its own, evoke web components).
* * *
Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s ver-
dict on noninfringement, and Express has identified no
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 18 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 18 of 19 --

EXPRESS MOBILE, INC. v. GODADDY . COM , LLC 19
basis for a new trial, we affirm the district court’s denial
of the requests for post-trial relief.
III
For the foregoing reasons, for the ’397 family, we re-
verse the district court’s construction of “runtime engine,”
vacate the court’s summary judgment of noninfringement,
and remand the case for further proceedings regarding
the two patents in that family. For the ’755 family, we
affirm the court’s denials of Express’s motion for JMOL
and, in the alternative, a new trial.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Case: 23-2265 Document: 60 Page: 19 Filed: 04/02/2025

-- 19 of 19 --