Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Hive Technology, Inc.
dismissed with prejudice- Docket:
- 1:23-cv-00002
- Court:
- D. Del. (Judge Noreika)
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulated Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissal; each side bears own costs. No merits ruling.
Defendant
1 case as defendant.
Hive Technology, Inc. (Hive) — Legal name Hive Technology, Inc.; the company does business as "Hive." Headquartered in New York, NY (413 West 14th Street). Founded 2015 by John Furneaux (CEO) and Eric Typaldos (CTO/co-founder); Crunchbase lists a Jan. 6, 2016 incorporation date. It is a privately held, venture-backed company — not public, and no parent company is disclosed. PitchBook and other trackers put headcount in the roughly 65–80 range; funding totals about $26M, most recently a $10M Series B (Aug. 2021) led by Rembrandt Venture Partners with participation from Zoom's Apps Fund, Tribeca Venture Partners, and AngelPad. Revenue is not publicly disclosed; third-party estimates vary and are unverified.
Products / services. Hive is an operating software company selling a SaaS work-management and collaboration platform for teams. Core offerings include project management with multiple views (Gantt, Kanban, table, calendar), task tracking and templates, time tracking and resource management, proofing/approvals, reporting and analytics, and standalone collaboration tools such as Hive Notes. Target customers span enterprise, agency, higher-education, and professional-services teams. It acquired SquidHub in July 2021.
Patent-litigation posture. Hive appears once in the tracked data, solely as a defendant (0 plaintiff cases, 1 defendant case) — the profile of an operating company targeted by a patent assertion entity rather than an active litigant. The single matter was filed in the District of Delaware (Judge Maryellen Noreika), not a plaintiff-friendly Texas venue.
Notable case. Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Hive Technology, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00002 (D. Del.), filed January 2023, accused Hive's project-management, Notes, Forms, and Messaging features of infringing U.S. Patents 6,845,448 and 8,117,644. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), each bearing its own costs; no merits ruling issued. Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies is characterized as a non-practicing entity (Seyfarth Shaw's "NPE Showcase") that asserted the same patents against Trello, Nulab, and LiquidPlanner; Unified Patents ran a prior-art contest on the '448 patent.
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulated Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissal; each side bears own costs. No merits ruling.