Litigation

Untitled case

unknown

1:23-cv-00003

Court
D. Del.

Patents at issue (2)

8117644
6845448

Summary

Additional docket number identified on the Google Patents litigation record for US 8,117,644; defendants not confirmed in the narrative. Part of the 2023 assertion campaign described as asserting the '644 and '448 patents.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case using multiple targeted searches.

Now let me dig into the specific case — 1:23-cv-00003 appears to be Web 2.0 Technologies v. LiquidPlanner — plus the patents and related rulings.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches. Let me start with the basic docket and case information.

The case number 1:23-cv-00003 corresponds to Web 2.0 Technologies v. LiquidPlanner, Inc. Let me get the full docket details.

Let me dig deeper into the LiquidPlanner docket, the motion to dismiss order, and the resolution.

Based on my research, case 1:23-cv-00003 is Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. LiquidPlanner, Inc. (D. Del., Judge Maryellen Noreika). Here is the chronology, with the caveat that the §101/venue rulings in this specific docket are only partially visible in the public sources I could reach, so I flag what is and is not well-sourced.

1. Filing & initial pleadings

  • Filed early January 2023 in the District of Delaware (docket records list a 2023-01-01 filing date; it was the third of a large, coordinated early-2023 wave of Web 2.0 Technologies suits in this District — e.g., Accelo, 1:23-cv-00001; TaskWorld, 1:23-cv-00042; Zendesk, 1:23-cv-00105; Trello, 1:23-cv-00344; Realtimeboard/Miro, 1:23-cv-00004). Complaint at D.I. 1, asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 ("Online Repository for Personal Information") and U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 ("Method and System for Online Document Collaboration").
  • Parties: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (plaintiff; plaintiff's counsel Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC) v. LiquidPlanner, Inc. (defendant; project-management SaaS vendor; docket reflects a Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying parent Tempo Software Inc., D.I. 11, 2023-04-21).
  • No answer or counterclaims appear on the docket before the case moved to dismissal briefing; LiquidPlanner challenged the complaint by motion instead of answering. (Note: unlike several sibling cases in the campaign — e.g., Createch and ProofHub — there is no public record here of counterclaims.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

  • Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (or, alternatively, Transfer Venue) — D.I. 7 (filed April 2023). This was the primary substantive challenge.
    • Opposition: D.I. 13 Answering Brief (2023-05-02) and D.I. 14 Declaration of Naren Chaganti (2023-05-02).
    • Reply: D.I. 16 (2023-05-09), attaching Exhibit A and the Declaration of Ted Hawksford.
  • Coordinated §101/plaintiff-identity management across the campaign: On 2023-10-02, Judge Noreika issued an Oral Order (D.I. 18) sua sponte directing Plaintiff to explain why Pennar Software Corporation — the named assignee on the face of both patents — was omitted as a co-plaintiff in most of the Delaware cases, including this one (it was named only in the Zendesk case). Plaintiff responded by letter on 2023-10-04 (D.I. 19).
  • Order on the pending motions to dismiss — D.I. 20 (2023-10-05), a signed 8-page order by Judge Noreika "ruling on pending motions to dismiss." I could confirm the order's existence and date but not its precise holding in this docket from the sources available; the fact that Plaintiff was permitted to (and did) file an amended complaint three weeks later indicates the dismissal was without prejudice / with leave to amend, consistent with the parallel §101 ruling pattern in the campaign (see §7 below).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

  • None. The case did not reach claim construction; it was resolved/attritioned at the pleading stage.

4. Discovery milestones

  • None of substance. No scheduling order, infringement contentions, or discovery disputes appear in the visible docket.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

  • None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion occurred.

6. Disposition / present posture

  • Amended Complaint — D.I. 23 (2023-11-06). Consistent with the October 2 oral order, Plaintiff amended to add Pennar Software Corporation as a co-plaintiff (matching the campaign-wide pattern described in Devlin's 2023-10-04 letter).
  • Status: Closed (multiple litigation databases — Ex Parte AI Lab and the Patexia docket — list the case as "Closed"). The precise terminating event (voluntary dismissal, stipulated dismissal, or settlement) is not well-sourced in the records I could access; the last substantive docket entry I can confirm is the November 6, 2023 Amended Complaint. I would not assert a settlement or a with-prejudice dismissal for this specific docket without pulling PACER directly.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and the broader campaign's effect

  • No PTAB post-grant proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) are recorded against either asserted patent; the patent records show "Validity challenges: None recorded." The decisive challenge to these patents ran through district-court §101 motions, not the PTAB.
  • The controlling parallel development was in a sibling Web 2.0 Technologies case: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC (Basecamp), No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.). On 2024-03-25, Judge Blakey granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and held both the '448 and '644 patents directed to the abstract idea of "storing information" and controlling access to it, ineligible under Alice step one and step two, dismissing without prejudice (30-2 at 25). The court emphasized that the specifications recite only generic computer components and that the complaint contained no "inventive concept" allegations. This ruling — issued after the Delaware campaign's October 2023 dismissal order — is the leading substantive holding on these two patents.
  • Pattern of the campaign (effect on this case): The other Delaware suits were overwhelmingly terminated by early dismissal rather than litigated to judgment — e.g., Google (1:23-cv-00340) voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (2023-09-08); ProofHub (1:23-cv-00343) dismissed with prejudice pre-answer; Realtimeboard/Miro (1:23-cv-00004) dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation (2024-02-05). The uniformity of outcomes, and the repeated §101 rulings across districts, strongly suggest that the same §101 vulnerability drove the shutdown of the LiquidPlanner case as well.

Bottom line

  • Case 1:23-cv-00003 = Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. LiquidPlanner, Inc., D. Del. (Judge Noreika), asserting '448 and '644.
  • Key legal development: LiquidPlanner's improper-venue/transfer motion (D.I. 7) and Judge Noreika's coordination of the campaign-wide §101 and Pennar-joinder issues (Oral Order D.I. 18; Order D.I. 20, 2023-10-05), culminating in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (D.I. 23, 2023-11-06) adding Pennar.
  • Outcome: Case closed; no trial, no Markman, no PTAB proceedings, no counterclaims of record. The patents were not adjudicated in this docket, but they were held §101-ineligible in the parallel N.D. Ill. 37signals ruling (2024-03-25), which is the most significant substantive precedent affecting them.

Sourcing note: The docket detail (D.I. numbers/dates) is from Patexia's docket mirror and CourtListener/PACER-derived RECAP entries; the §101 holding text is from the CourtListener opinion in the 37signals case and VitalLaw's 2024-03-28 report. The exact final terminating entry in 1:23-cv-00003 is not confirmed in accessible sources and should be verified against PACER.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

Let me get the specific docket and attorney appearance entries for this case.

Let me look at the full docket and the attorneys appearing, including Naren Chaganti.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. LiquidPlanner, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00003-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line: The plaintiff's counsel of record is Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware). He is the filing attorney on every plaintiff-side docket entry I can verify in this case. One additional individual, Naren Chaganti, appears in a declaration on the plaintiff's behalf, but I could not confirm from available sources whether he entered an appearance as counsel of record. No separate counsel for the later-added co-plaintiff Pennar Software Corporation is visible on the public docket for this case.

⚠️ Caveat on scope of the record: I was unable to pull a complete, item-by-item docket sheet for 1:23-cv-00003 (the full PACER/CourtListener docket for this case number was not returned in my searches; the docket I could reconstruct comes from the Patexia docket transcription and the CourtListener mirror of the related Trello case, No. 1:23-cv-00344). So there may be pro hac vice entries or withdrawal notices I have not seen. Treat the roster below as "verified appearances I could locate," not a certified complete list.

1. Lead counsel (plaintiff)

Timothy Devlin — lead counsel; sole attorney of record I can verify on plaintiff-side filings

  • Firm / office: Devlin Law Firm LLC, 1526 Gilpin Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19806
  • Contact on file (from USPTO PTAB filings by the same firm): (302) 449-9010; fax (302) 353-4251; tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
  • Bar/registration: U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Reg. No. 41,706 (as stated in Devlin Law Firm PTAB submissions)
  • Verified acts in this case (D.I. numbers per Patexia docket transcription for 1:23-cv-00003):
    • D.I. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement, signed/filed by Devlin (originally filed under the D. Del. miscellaneous docket, receipt ADEDC-4034505, with the "SEE CIVIL ACTION 23-3" notation; original filing appears to be dated on/around Jan 1, 2023, with case assignment to Judge Noreika entered 1/4/2023)
    • D.I. 6 — Summons returned executed (served on LiquidPlanner 3/28/2023)
    • D.I. 13 — Plaintiff's answering brief opposing LiquidPlanner's motion to dismiss for improper venue (D.I. 7)
    • D.I. 15 — Declaration of Timothy Devlin with Exhibits A–D
    • D.I. 19 — Letter to the Hon. Maryellen Noreika responding to the Court's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order re: the Pennar Software Corporation plaintiff discrepancy
    • D.I. 23 — Amended Complaint (Nov. 6, 2023), filed after the Court's oral order directing plaintiff to address the Pennar issue
  • Experience note: Devlin is a Delaware-based patent litigator and PTAB practitioner whose firm has been the recurring filer in the entire Web 2.0 Technologies/Pennar assertion campaign — the 2023 D. Del. wave against LiquidPlanner, Hive, Workfront, Zendesk, Mango/ClickUp, Freshworks, Google, ProofHub, and Trello, plus the N.D. Ill. (37signals/Basecamp) and S.D.N.Y. (Nulab) actions. He also appears as lead PTAB counsel for patent owners (e.g., Ideahub, Jenam Tech).

2. Other plaintiff-side counsel to note

Jason Michael Wejnert — Devlin Law Firm LLC (associate)

  • Listed by Bloomberg Law/IP Law Daily as plaintiff-side counsel of record for Web 2.0 Technologies in the parallel N.D. Ill. case, Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (that case was dismissed without prejudice on § 101 grounds, March 25, 2024, Judge Blakey).
  • ⚠️ I found no docket entry placing Wejnert on the 1:23-cv-00003 docket specifically. He is relevant as the same-firm/campaign team member, not confirmed counsel here.

Naren Chaganti — role unresolved

  • Appears at D.I. 14 in this case as "DECLARATION of Naren Chaganti re 13 Answering Brief in Opposition by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC." A declaration filed by a non-attorney would normally be a witness declaration; however, Chaganti is also known in this campaign's orbit, and I could not confirm whether he is an attorney of record, a declarant, or affiliated with Pennar Software.
  • ⚠️ Do not treat Chaganti as confirmed counsel. I have no reliable source establishing his bar status or appearance in No. 1:23-cv-00003. This is the single largest open question in the counsel roster.

Pennar Software Corporation (co-plaintiff added Nov. 6, 2023) — counsel not identified here

  • After Judge Noreika's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order, plaintiff represented it would amend "to add Pennar Software Corporation as a plaintiff" (D.I. 19 letter; D.I. 23 Amended Complaint). Pennar is the recorded assignee of both asserted patents (U.S. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644).
  • In the later Texas cases where Pennar is a co-plaintiff (Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Baylor Scott & White Medical Center Hillcrest, No. 6:25-cv-00071; v. Methodist Hospital Hill Country, No. 1:25-cv-00292, both W.D. Tex.), the plaintiff-side team included Robert Kiddie (Texas) and Alan A. Wright (admitted pro hac vice), alongside Devlin.
  • ⚠️ I found no pro hac vice motion or appearance for Kiddie, Wright, or any other attorney on behalf of Pennar in No. 1:23-cv-00003. If Pennar's separate counsel appeared in Delaware, it is not reflected in the materials I could access.

3. Defense-side counsel (context only)

LiquidPlanner's filings (D.I. 7 motion to dismiss for improper venue; D.I. 16 reply brief) were signed by David Holloway per the docket's filer field. LiquidPlanner's Rule 7.1 disclosure identified Tempo Software Inc. as its corporate parent. I did not verify Holloway's firm affiliation, so I am not naming one.

4. Sources and sourcing caveats

What is not verified: (a) whether Naren Chaganti is counsel of record in this case; (b) whether any attorney appeared for Pennar Software Corporation after the Nov. 6, 2023 Amended Complaint; (c) whether Devlin Law Firm associates other than Devlin entered appearances here via pro hac vice; and (d) the ultimate disposition of 1:23-cv-00003 — one aggregator lists the case status as "Closed," but I could not retrieve the terminating docket entry to confirm the date or terms. I have not invented any attorney, date, or filing to fill those gaps.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Let me get the full docket and identify defense counsel.

Defense counsel of record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. LiquidPlanner, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00003-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line: The only defense-side attorney name that appears on the docket records I retrieved is David Holloway. I was not able to verify his firm, his formal appearance entry (D.I. number), or whether additional out-of-state/Seattle counsel appeared alongside him. I am flagging that gap rather than guessing, per the sourcing rules for this project.

Defendant represented

Defendant Notes
LiquidPlanner, Inc. Seattle-area SaaS project-management vendor; corporate parent Tempo Software Inc. per the Rule 7.1 disclosure filed at D.I. 11 (Apr. 21, 2023). LiquidPlanner is the sole defendant in this case.

Counsel identified

Name Role (as supported by the record) Firm / office Patent litigation note
David Holloway Lead/only defense counsel appearing on the docket records retrieved. The ECF filer tag on LiquidPlanner's substantive filings is "(Holloway, David)." Not confirmed. My searches did not return a firm page, docket signature block, or profile tying this filer to a specific firm. Do not treat any firm attribution as verified. Not verifiable from the sources obtained.

What the docket actually shows for Holloway (defense-side filings):

  • D.I. 11 (Apr. 21, 2023) — Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: identifying Corporate Parent Tempo Software Inc. for LiquidPlanner, Inc., filed by LiquidPlanner, Inc., filer tag "(Holloway, David)." (Patexia docket mirror)
  • D.I. 16 (May 9, 2023) — Reply Brief re D.I. 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Improper Venue or alternatively Transfer Venue, with Exhibit A and the Declaration of Ted Hawksford, filed by LiquidPlanner, Inc., filer tag "(Holloway, David)."
  • D.I. 7 — the underlying motion to dismiss/transfer (filed on or about April 2023; captured only by cross-reference in the D.I. 16 caption, so the filer tag on D.I. 7 itself was not directly retrieved).

Not counsel: Ted Hawksford appears only as the declarant supporting the venue motion (a LiquidPlanner-side fact witness), not as an attorney of record.

Important disambiguation (do not conflate cases)

The related Web 2.0 Technologies campaign in D. Del. used different defense firms per defendant. The only defense counsel I could positively source elsewhere in the campaign was:

  • Michael J. Flynn / Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP — counsel for ProofHub, LLC in Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. ProofHub, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00343 (D. Del.) (PatSnap litigation summary citing PACER docket 1:23-cv-00343). This is not the LiquidPlanner case, and I found no evidence Flynn or Morris Nichols entered the LiquidPlanner matter. Treat it as a lead to check, not as a finding.

Plaintiff-side counsel, for completeness: Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, DE) — he signed the complaint, the answering brief at D.I. 13, and the Oct. 4, 2023 letter at D.I. 19.

Procedural context relevant to who is defending

  • D.I. 18 (Oct. 2, 2023) — Judge Noreika's oral order raising the Pennar Software Corporation plaintiff discrepancy across the Web 2.0 Technologies cases (listing related matters in N.D. Ill., S.D.N.Y., and D. Del. against 37signals/Basecamp, Nulab, and Zendesk).
  • D.I. 19 (Oct. 4, 2023) — plaintiff's letter response; D.I. 20 (Oct. 5, 2023) — order ruling on the pending motions to dismiss; D.I. 23 (Nov. 6, 2023) — amended complaint (adding Pennar as co-plaintiff in the campaign generally).
  • The case is recorded as Closed in the litigation-data mirrors (AI Lab docket mirror). I could not confirm the closing mechanism (dismissal vs. transfer to another district, e.g., W.D. Wash. where LiquidPlanner is based, versus settlement/voluntary dismissal). Because the docket shows an order resolving the motions to dismiss, the venue motion's disposition is a specific open question that determines whether defense counsel re-appeared in a transferee court.

Explicit gaps / what I could not verify

  1. David Holloway's firm and office location — unverified. I ran targeted searches for the attorney and for firm pages and got no reliable hit before exhausting my search budget.
  2. Whether a formal Notice of Appearance exists for LiquidPlanner (and its D.I. number) — not in the retrieved records; the earliest confirmed defense filing is D.I. 11.
  3. Whether additional defense counsel (local Delaware + out-of-state, or in-house) appear — no additional names surfaced on any defense filing I retrieved.
  4. Case termination mechanism — status "Closed" is reported by third-party mirrors, not confirmed against a PACER docket entry.

Recommended verification steps (would resolve everything above in minutes)

  • Pull the full PACER docket report for 1:23-cv-00003 (D. Del.) and read the signature blocks of D.I. 7, 11, 16, and the D.I. 20 order; the signature block names the firm and all attorneys.
  • Check the court's attorney-of-record list for the case (the "Attorneys" tab on CourtListener's docket page for this case number) rather than relying on filer tags.
  • If the case was transferred, pull the transferee district docket (likely W.D. Wash.) for re-filed appearances.
  • Cross-check Law360 / Reuters Legal coverage of the October 2023 dismissal order, which typically names defense counsel in the appearances line.

Confidence: High that LiquidPlanner is the sole defendant and that David Holloway is the defense-side filer of record on the confirmed filings. Low on his firm, and I am not asserting a firm name.