Pennar Software Corp.

I'll research this entity before writing the profile.

Let me verify the corporate profile details for Pennar Software Corp.

Let me check the NPE database characterization and corporate registration details.

Pennar Software Corporation ("Pennar Software Corp.") is a privately held entity associated with a family of patents claiming priority to a January 7, 2000 filing. Patent records list the assignee at Town and Country, Missouri and later Virginia Beach, Virginia; named inventors include Naren, Sitapathi Rao, and Damayanti Chaganti. No public source supports employee count, revenue, or a parent company, and it is not publicly traded. Verified corporate-profile details beyond the patent filings and litigation record are limited.

Operations: Pennar Software shows no evidence of active products or services. It functions as a patent-holding/holding-and-licensing vehicle. The asserted portfolio centers on "Online repository for personal information" (U.S. 6,845,448 B1) and "Method and system for online document collaboration" (U.S. 8,117,644 B2), with related grants including U.S. 9,465,913 B1, 8,978,147 B2, and 9,864,877 B1 covering secure personal-data repositories, health records, and access authorization. The Stanford NPE Database lists Pennar Software as a patent asserter, categorized as "individual-inventor-started" and "acquired patents."

Litigation posture: All eight tracked cases are as plaintiff and none as defendant, consistent with a non-practicing assertion entity. Pennar appears almost exclusively as co-plaintiff alongside Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC, represented by the Devlin Law Firm (Timothy Devlin, Robert Kiddie). A 2023 D. Del. standing order noted Pennar is "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents," the only patents asserted across the Web 2.0 Technologies campaign.

Notable cases: Tracked suits target SaaS collaboration tools — Google, Zendesk, Nulab, 37signals/Basecamp, Hive Technology, Realtimeboard/Miro, ProofHub, and Workzone — in D. Del. (Judge Noreika), N.D. Ill. (Judge Blakey), and S.D.N.Y. (Judge Engelmayer). In 37signals, the N.D. Ill. court granted dismissal on § 101 patent-eligibility grounds in March 2024; the case later closed with prejudice. External docket reporting also shows 2025 filings in W.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex. against Texas hospital systems under U.S. 9,465,913 B1.