Background
Express Mobile, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168, which claim foundational technology for constructing websites. The patents stem from an application filed in 1999 and describe methods for building web pages through structured templates and content management — technology now embedded in virtually every modern website builder.
Express Mobile sued GoDaddy in October 2019, alleging that GoDaddy’s Website Builder and Managed WordPress products infringed both patents. After six years of complex litigation, a Delaware federal jury in November 2025 returned a verdict finding that GoDaddy willfully infringed both patents and awarded $170 million in reasonable royalty damages — $100 million for the period through December 2019 and $70 million for December 2019 through December 2022.
Following the verdict, Express Mobile sought enhanced damages of up to three times the jury’s award (approximately $370 million total), while GoDaddy moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on willfulness and a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Connolly granted GoDaddy’s JMOL motion on the question of willfulness, finding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding that GoDaddy’s infringement was willful. Under Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, 579 U.S. 93 (2016), willful infringement requires evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, coupled with subjective knowledge or recklessness.
The court concluded that GoDaddy’s litigation conduct and the existence of reasonable non-infringement and invalidity defenses — demonstrated by related PTAB proceedings in which USPTO Director Squires ordered reconsideration of final written decisions — negated a finding of the requisite egregiousness for willfulness as a matter of law. The $170 million base verdict remains intact, along with prejudgment and postjudgment interest.
Key Takeaways
- Willfulness is a high bar post-Halo. Even where a jury finds willful infringement, courts retain the authority to overturn that finding on JMOL when the defendant maintained reasonable defenses throughout the litigation. The existence of PTAB proceedings challenging patent validity can help defeat willfulness.
- $170M verdict stands — for now. While GoDaddy avoided potentially $370M+ in damages, the base $170 million verdict plus interest remains. GoDaddy is expected to appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- PTAB proceedings cut both ways. In a related development, USPTO Director Squires previously ordered the PTAB to revisit its invalidation decisions in this case after Express Mobile argued the Board’s final written decisions contradicted the jury’s infringement findings. The willfulness ruling suggests that the mere existence of these ongoing validity challenges weighs against willfulness.
- Massive exposure for website-builder platforms. The underlying verdict signals that fundamental web-design patents from the late 1990s can still command substantial royalties from modern platforms, potentially affecting other website-builder services.
Why It Matters
This ruling is significant for patent damages law. The court’s decision to override the jury’s willfulness finding demonstrates that federal judges continue to serve as a meaningful check on enhanced damages under Halo, even after a jury has spoken. For defendants facing large patent verdicts, the case illustrates that maintaining reasonable invalidity and non-infringement positions throughout litigation — and particularly pursuing PTAB challenges — can insulate against the threat of treble damages. For patent owners, the decision underscores that proving willfulness requires more than just a large verdict; it demands evidence that the infringer had no reasonable basis for its position.