Background
Express Mobile, Inc. — founded by former IBM engineer Steven Rempell — holds U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168, which cover browser-based website generation tools and runtime engines. In 2019, Express Mobile sued GoDaddy in Delaware, alleging that GoDaddy’s website-building tools infringed both patents.
After the Federal Circuit reversed a narrow claim construction in April 2025, the case went to a jury trial before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in November 2025. The jury found that GoDaddy willfully infringed both patents and awarded $170 million in damages — $100 million in royalties through December 2019, plus $70 million for the subsequent period. Express Mobile is now seeking enhanced damages totaling roughly $370 million based on the willfulness finding.
Meanwhile, the same ‘168 patent was challenged in a parallel inter partes review (IPR2021-01226) filed by Meta Platforms and Google and joined by Wix, eBay, Expedia, GoDaddy, SAP, and others. The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s original decision in June 2025 for an erroneous construction of the term “style” and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, the PTAB on January 16, 2026 again invalidated the patent’s claims as obvious — stating that “the Nov. 6 GoDaddy verdict doesn’t alter its analysis.”
The Court’s Holding
On May 1, 2026, USPTO Director John Squires issued an order directing the PTAB’s Delegated Rehearing Panel (DRP) to review the January 16, 2026 remand decision. Director Squires found that the PTAB panel gave “no explanation” for why it reached a conclusion that diverged from the jury’s verdict despite reviewing the same or substantially similar evidence. He further found that the panel had “effectively disregarded” his prior guidance on the matter.
The Director’s intervention exercises the post-United States v. Arthrex supervisory authority recognized by the Supreme Court in 2021, which allows the USPTO Director to review PTAB final written decisions to ensure accountability within the executive branch. Squires’ order signals that when a federal jury and the PTAB reach opposite conclusions on patent validity based on overlapping evidence, the PTAB must at minimum explain why it diverged rather than simply assert its analysis is unaffected.
Key Takeaways
- The order highlights a fundamental tension in the patent system: a federal jury upheld the patent’s validity and awarded $170 million in damages, while the PTAB — an administrative tribunal at the same patent office — invalidated the same patent on obviousness grounds using substantially similar evidence. Both proceedings are legally independent, but the inconsistency is difficult to reconcile.
- Director Squires is using post-Arthrex review authority to demand reasoned decision-making from the PTAB, particularly when the Board’s conclusions conflict with jury findings on the same evidence.
- This intervention comes at a time when IPR filings are at historic lows — only 11 petitions in a recent four-week period — and the PTAB’s role in the patent system is under increasing scrutiny from Congress, the courts, and the current administration.
- For patent owners, the case underscores the risk of parallel proceedings: even a massive jury verdict does not insulate a patent from PTAB invalidation, though the Director may step in when the divergence goes unexplained.
Why It Matters
The Express Mobile saga is one of the starkest examples of the “patent death squad” critique that has dogged the PTAB since its inception. A patent owner wins a $170 million jury verdict — including a willfulness finding — only to have an administrative panel invalidate the same patent without addressing why it reached the opposite conclusion on overlapping evidence. Director Squires’ order does not guarantee the patent will survive, but it insists on transparency. For companies navigating patent disputes in both the district courts and the PTAB, this case is a critical data point on how Director Review can function as a check on unexplained inconsistency.