IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: $170M infringement verdict against GoDaddy upheld in website-building patent case, (May 20, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Substantial evidence supported infringement and damages calculations, but the absence of specific pre-suit notice and proof of deliberate conduct defeated the jury’s willfulness finding.

The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, has partially granted post-trial relief to GoDaddy.com, LLC by setting aside the jury’s willfulness finding, but otherwise upheld a $170 million verdict in favor of Express Mobile, Inc. for infringement of two website-building patents. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings on infringement, validity, and damages, denied GoDaddy’s motion for a new trial, awarded prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and rejected enhanced damages in the absence of willful infringement (Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH (D. Del. May 14, 2026)).

Background. Express Mobile, Inc. develops browser-based technologies for creating and managing websites. GoDaddy.com, LLC is a major provider of domain registration, hosting, and website-building services, including its Website Builder (WSB) and Managed WordPress (MWP) products. The dispute arose from GoDaddy’s deployment of website design tools that Express Mobile alleged incorporated its patented systems.

At issue were U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 (the ’397 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 (the ’168 patent), both directed to systems that allow users to design websites through selectable attributes stored in a database and rendered dynamically through a runtime engine. The patents describe a framework in which website elements and styles are stored externally and assembled at runtime to generate web pages in a browser.

The litigation followed an earlier 2023 trial involving related patents that were found valid but not infringed. The present dispute proceeded to a November 2025 jury trial on claim 2 of the ’397 patent and claim 1 of the ’168 patent. The jury found that GoDaddy infringed both patents, that the patents were valid, and that the infringement was willful, awarding $170 million in damages. Post-trial motions from both sides led to the present ruling.

Runtime engine theory sustained. In challenging the verdict, GoDaddy argued that Express Mobile failed to prove the existence of a qualifying “run time file” or “run time engine.” That argument did not succeed. Evidence at trial showed that GoDaddy’s HTML files initiated a dynamic process by directing browsers to retrieve JavaScript files, which then executed commands to render web pages.

Unlike the static implementation rejected in Shopify Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., 2025 WL 3511442 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2025), the system here dynamically assembled webpages at runtime. The district court relied on the Federal Circuit’s earlier decision in the same dispute, Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, 2025 WL 1013386 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2025), which clarified that the runtime engine needs only to “utilize” database information without specifying how that information is accessed.

Testimony from Express Mobile’s expert established that the HTML file triggered a “chain reaction” that led to the execution of commands by a JavaScript engine. On that basis, the jury could reasonably find that the claimed “generate commands” requirement was met.

Virtual machine limitation satisfied. GoDaddy also failed to overturn the jury’s finding that its system used a virtual machine. The court had previously construed that term as “software that emulates computing functionality,” and the record supported the conclusion that JavaScript engines met this definition. Although GoDaddy’s expert disputed that characterization, cross-examination revealed that major browser developers have described their JavaScript engines as virtual machines. That evidence, combined with testimony regarding how JavaScript engines execute commands necessary to render webpages, was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Multidimensional database requirement met. GoDaddy’s challenge to the ’168 patent similarly fell short. The evidence showed that the WSB system stored website data in hierarchical structures involving multiple pages, objects, and attributes. This structure aligned with the court’s construction of a “multidimensional array” as an indexed set of elements defined across multiple dimensions. Testimony further established that the database was provided to a server accessible to a web browser, satisfying another claim requirement. The jury’s finding on this issue, therefore, rested on substantial evidence.

Willfulness finding vacated. The outcome, however, differed on the question of willful infringement. The governing standard requires proof that the accused infringer acted with deliberate or intentional infringement, as explained in Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Express Mobile relied primarily on letters sent to GoDaddy in 2013 and 2018. Those communications, however, did not identify specific infringing conduct or provide claim charts linking GoDaddy’s products to the asserted patents. Unlike the detailed notice at issue in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the record here reflected only general awareness of the patents. That was insufficient to establish deliberate or reckless infringement. As a result, the court set aside the jury’s willfulness finding, consistent with Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., 119 F.4th 948 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Damages award upheld. GoDaddy’s attempt to overturn the $170 million damages award was unsuccessful. The jury adopted a hybrid approach, combining Express Mobile’s royalty rate with GoDaddy’s revenue base. Such an approach is permissible under Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005), which allows juries to select intermediate positions between competing expert analyses. The court also found that Express Mobile’s apportionment methodology, assigning 65 percent of the technological value of WSB to patented features, was supported by evidence and not speculative. Arguments that the award was excessive relative to operating profits were rejected. Reasonable royalty determinations, the court noted, may reflect the economic value of the patented technology rather than strict accounting profits.

No new trial justified. GoDaddy’s request for a new trial did not gain traction. The record contained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings, and the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. Reliance on a subsequent PTAB decision invalidating the ’168 patent also failed. Under Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017), such administrative determinations are not binding on district courts and did not warrant disturbing the verdict.

Interest awarded; enhanced damages denied. Express Mobile succeeded in securing prejudgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterly, in line with General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648 (1983). The court rejected arguments that a delay in filing suit justified limiting interest. Post-judgment interest was also awarded at the statutory rate. However, enhanced damages were denied because such relief requires egregious misconduct, which was not established once the willfulness finding was vacated.

Conclusion. Thus, the court’s ruling preserved the core of the jury’s verdict—liability and $170 million in damages—while eliminating the willfulness determination. GoDaddy thus achieved only partial relief, with the financial consequences of the infringement verdict remaining largely intact.

The Case is No. 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH.

Judge: Kennelly, M.

Attorneys: Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC) for Express Mobile, Inc. Beth Moskow-Schnoll (Ballard Spahr LLP) for GoDaddy.com, LLC.

Companies: Express Mobile, Inc.; GoDaddy.com, LLC

Cases: Patent DelawareNews TechnologyInternet