U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kenelly ruled that Express Mobile failed to present substantial evidence that GoDaddy had the specific intent to infringe two patents related to browser-based website building tools. The jury had previously found GoDaddy liable for willful infringement of the ’397 and ’168 patents and awarded Express Mobile $170 million in damages.
GoDaddy had moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and for a new trial under Rule 59(a), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on infringement, validity, and willfulness.
Express Mobile had sent GoDaddy letters in 2013 and 2018 regarding the patents. The 2013 letter informed GoDaddy that Express Mobile was ready to entertain offers to purchase the patents. It did not notify GoDaddy that its Website Builder product potentially infringed.
Express Mobile replied that it thought GoDaddy “might be interested in light of the general area in which the patents apply.” The company provided draft claim charts for eBay, Magento, Shopify, and WordPress, but did not provide a claim chart for GoDaddy.
Kenelly concluded that this correspondence did not put GoDaddy on notice that it was infringing the patents. He distinguished the case from Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., where a plaintiff sent a letter pointing to a specific prototype and noting that current or future products might infringe.
“This case is different,” Kenelly wrote. “The 2013 letter only informed GoDaddy that Express Mobile was ready to entertain offers to purchase the ’397 and ’168 patents. It did not notify GoDaddy that WSB potentially infringed on the patents.”
The judge also rejected GoDaddy’s arguments that Express Mobile failed to prove infringement. He found substantial evidence that GoDaddy’s Website Builder used a “run time file” (the HTML file) that utilized information from a database to generate commands.
GoDaddy argued that the HTML file did not generate commands because it merely retrieved script.js files. Kenelly disagreed, noting that the HTML file initiates a “chain reaction” by directing the browser to retrieve those files, which then execute commands.
The judge also rejected GoDaddy’s claim that the Website Builder did not use a “virtual machine.” He found that the JavaScript engine required to display the website qualified as a virtual machine under the court’s prior construction of the term.
On damages, Kenelly upheld the $170 million award. He rejected GoDaddy’s argument that the award was excessive or based on an inflated royalty base. The jury credited Express Mobile’s expert’s royalty rate calculation but used GoDaddy’s expert’s preferred royalty base of net revenue rather than subscription counts.
Kenelly also granted Express Mobile’s motions for prejudgment and post-judgment interest but denied its motion for enhanced damages, which requires a finding of willful infringement.
The court also taxed costs, allowing Express Mobile to recover deposition and trial transcript costs but denying costs for video transcripts, real-time feeds, and witness binders.
The parties must submit a proposed final judgment by May 21, 2026.