Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a verified overview.

Let me dig into the patents, the broader assertion campaign, and any PTAB proceedings.

Case Overview: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.)

Parties and posture. The plaintiffs are two related patent-holding entities: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (a Texas entity that describes itself as holder of the asserted patents) and Pennar Software Corporation (a Virginia corporation listed as the assignee on the face of both patents). The patents' named inventors are Naren Chaganti, Sitapathi Rao Chaganti, and Damayanti Chaganti, and the original applicant/assignee is Pennar Software Corp. — so this is an individual-inventor-started family patent-holding operation rather than a university or a practicing company, and Stanford's NPE litigation database classifies Web 2.0 Technologies under the "individual-inventor-started" and "acquired patents" asserter categories (Stanford NPE db — Pennar Software Corp.). The defendant, 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, is the Chicago-based software company best known for the Basecamp project-management and collaboration platform (and more recently HEY, ONCE, and Writebook). Plaintiffs were represented by the Devlin Law Firm LLC (Timothy Devlin, Neil A. Benchell, Jason Michael Wejnert); 37signals was represented by Goodwin Procter LLP and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP, with I. Neel Chatterjee, Jacqueline Genovese Bova, Jeffrey A. Rossman and others appearing on the docket (UniCourt docket summary; PatSnap litigation note). Firm-level attribution between the two defense firms for individual attorneys is not fully verified from the free sources; the reported appearance list should be confirmed on PACER.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The operative pleading was the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 44, filed Apr. 17, 2024), which alleged that Basecamp's account-permission, project-role, activity-report, and document/file-collaboration features infringe two patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644, "Method and system for online document collaboration" (app. 12/799,945, filed May 5, 2010; issued Feb. 14, 2012), which claims a server-side method of storing a user's document, associating access restrictions with it, verifying a second user's identity, letting that user modify the document, and recording approvals/disapprovals of the modifications; and U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, "Online repository for personal information" (app. 09/478,796, filed Jan. 7, 2000; issued Jan. 18, 2005), which claims a method of storing a first party's personal information as discrete "information objects," assigning security levels to each object, receiving a request carrying the user identifier, and securely transmitting only the authorized portion of the data. The patents share a Jan. 7, 2000 priority date; the '644 is a later continuation in the same Pennar family, and public patent records list both as expired/inactive for a 20-year term running from that 2000 priority date, subject to any adjustment (Google Patents US8117644B2; Espacenet US6845448B1). That age is significant: by the time of filing, the realistic exposure was past damages, and the campaign's principal leverage was nuisance-value settlement risk for SaaS vendors rather than injunction risk.

Why it matters. This case is a representative specimen of the 2023 "mass-filing" NPE wave rather than a one-off. Plaintiffs filed in N.D. Ill. on Jan. 13, 2023, but the same day and in following weeks filed near-identical suits on the same two patents against collaboration/project-management SaaS vendors — Accelo, Hive, LiquidPlanner, Realtimeboard (Miro), Createch/GoodDay, TaskWorld, ProofHub, Zendesk, Trello, Workfront, Freshworks, Nulab, and even Google — mostly in D. Del., prompting Judge Maryellen Noreika to issue an oral order (Oct. 2, 2023) demanding an explanation for the inconsistent inclusion of Pennar Software as a co-plaintiff and the plaintiff-side discrepancy across the "various Web2.0 Technologies cases filed in this District and beyond" (PacerMonitor — Workfront docket). On the merits, Judge John Robert Blakey granted 37signals' Rule 12(b)(6) motion on March 25, 2024, holding under Alice that both asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of storing information and controlling access to it — analogizing to Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and rejecting a Core Wireless "improved computer functionality" theory — and that the complaint pleaded no plausible inventive concept; but the dismissal was without prejudice with leave to amend by April 15, 2024 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. 43; Justia summary of the opinion; VitalLaw / IP Law Daily write-up). Rather than amend a third time and litigate a second § 101 motion, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to stay all deadlines pending settlement (Dkt. 46, May 2, 2024), then a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 48), which the court entered as a minute order dismissing the case with prejudice (Dkt. 49) and a final judgment (Dkt. 50) in late June 2024. The with-prejudice disposition bars these plaintiffs from re-asserting these two patents against 37signals, but leaves the patents enforceable against other parties — a pattern that repeated across nearly the entire 2023 campaign, in which most cases terminated by stipulated dismissal with prejudice rather than any merits adjudication of validity, infringement, or damages.

Key docket anchors (N.D. Ill. No. 1:23-cv-00230, per PACER/UniCourt):

• Jan. 13, 2023 — Complaint filed; case initially assigned to Judge Elaine E. Bucklo (Dkt. 1–4).
• Jan. 30–31, 2023 — Executive Committee order reassigning the case to Judge John Robert Blakey (Dkt. 6–7).
• July 11, 2023 — First Amended

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the two dismissal rulings, and any PTAB proceedings.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.)

Bottom line: A short, § 101-focused case that never reached claim construction, discovery on the merits, or trial. The court granted 37signals' Rule 12(b)(6) motion on Alice/§ 101 grounds (without prejudice, with leave to amend) on 2024-03-25. Rather than litigate a second eligibility round, the parties settled and the case ended in a stipulated dismissal with prejudice entered ~2024-06-26. No PTAB IPRs were instituted against either patent during this case (validity challenges listed as "none recorded"); the patents appear to have expired around 2020, which materially undercut the damages theory.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2023)

• 2023-01-13 — Complaint filed. Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (originally the sole plaintiff) filed a patent-infringement complaint with a jury demand in N.D. Ill. (Doc 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") against 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp. UniCourt docket summary; Justia docket
• 2023-01-17/30 — Judicial reassignment. Case initially assigned to Judge Elaine E. Bucklo (Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim); reassigned by Executive Committee Order to Judge John Robert Blakey on 2023-01-30 (Doc 6).
• 2023-01-25 — Patent report mailed to the PTO (Doc 5), per the local patent-reporting practice.
• 2023-01-31 — Scheduling/standing order requiring a joint status report by 2023-03-17 and warning of dismissal for non-prosecution (Doc 7).
• 2023-07-11 — First Amended Complaint, adding Pennar Software Corp. as co-plaintiff. This is confirmed by Judge Noreika's later oral order in the parallel Delaware actions, which specifically cites "First Amended Complaint, Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-0230 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2023)." (Patexia docket excerpt, Mango Tech.)

Caveat on answer/counterclaims: The publicly retrievable docket excerpts for this case do not show an answer or counterclaims; the case went to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion instead of an answer. I could not confirm a pleaded counterclaim (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) from the available sources — treat that as unverified rather than as "no counterclaims filed."

Counsel of record. Plaintiffs: Devlin Law Firm LLC (Timothy Devlin, Jason M. Wejnert, Neil A. Benchell). Defendants: Goodwin Procter LLP (I. Neel Chatterjee, Jacqueline Genovese Bova) and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP (Jeffrey A. Rossman, Jeffrey J. Catalano, Amanda E. Stephenson, Amadou K. Diaw). (PatSnap case profile; VitalLaw IP Law Daily, 2024-03-28)

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under § 101 (the dispositive motion)

• Defendant moved to dismiss both patents' infringement claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the asserted claims are directed to ineligible abstract ideas (Docs 33, 34 — motion and supporting memorandum).
• 2024-03-25 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docs 42, 43). Judge Blakey applied Alice step one and step two and held the claims ineligible:
  • Step one: The claims were directed to a "process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are involved merely as a tool," not "specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities" (quoting Ancora). The '448 patent recites "a method for automatically disbursing personal information"; the '644 patent recites "a method for online document collaboration." The court relied on Cellspin Soft v. Fitbit (claims "reciting the collection, transfer, and publishing of data are directed to an abstract idea") and distinguished Core Wireless, Data Engine, and Ancora.
  • Step two: No inventive concept — the claims "use generic computer hardware and software components to automate the conventional manual process"; the complaint "contains no allegations concerning any inventive concept and says nothing about any way in which the methods recited in the claims could be characterized as unconventional."
  • Remedy: Dismissal without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint by 2024-04-15 to cure the inventiveness-allegation deficiency; absent amendment, "this case will be dismissed."
  • Sources: CourtListener opinion (Doc 43); Justia (Doc 43); VitalLaw summary, 2024-03-28

Second Amended Complaint and renewed dismissal posture

• 2024-04-15 — Second Amended Complaint (Doc 44) filed by Web 2.0 Technologies and Pennar Software, adding the inventiveness allegations the court had invited. (UniCourt docket)
• 2024-04-17 — Minute entry (Doc 45): defendant's response to the SAC due 2024-05-06. The record is ambiguous as to whether a renewed 12(b)(6) motion was in fact filed against the SAC; the case resolved by settlement before any second merits ruling appears on the public docket.

Motion to stay pending settlement

• ~June 2024 — Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay all deadlines pending settlement (Doc 46) was granted; the court struck all dates and deadlines and ordered a stipulation of dismissal or status report by 2024-07-05. (UniCourt docket)

No transfer / no IPR stay

• There was no motion to transfer venue and no motion to stay pending IPR in this case. No IPR was on file to justify a stay (see §7 below).

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• None. The case was resolved on a 12(b)(6) pleading motion before any Markman proceeding. Notably, the court applied the Aatrix rule that on a 12(b)(6) § 101 motion it may adopt the non-movant's constructions or resolve claim-construction disputes only "to whatever extent is needed" — expressly "less than a full, formal claim construction." No claim terms were construed, and no joint claim construction statement or Markman order issued. (Doc 43; Justia)

---

4. Discovery Milestones

• No substantive discovery milestones are reflected in the public record. The case

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

Let me verify the docket appearances and firm details.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.)

Both plaintiffs — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Pennar Software Corporation — were represented by the same small patent-litigation boutique, Devlin Law Firm LLC (1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, Delaware 19806). The publicly available docket does not reflect any separate Illinois local-counsel appearance or any in-house counsel; the Devlin team acted as both filing and trial counsel throughout.

Sourcing and verification

• Neil A. Benchell is the attorney whose name appears on the substantive docket entries: Doc. 2 (Civil Cover Sheet), Doc. 3 (Attorney Appearance for Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC, filed 1/13/2023 — the same day as the complaint), Doc. 4 (Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement), Doc. 44 (Second Amended Complaint), and Doc. 48 (Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice). See the docket summary at the Justia docket page (dockets.justia.com/case/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv00230/425327) and UniCourt's mirror of the same docket. This is the strongest documentation of any plaintiff-side appearance.
• Jason Michael Wejnert is listed as a plaintiff attorney on the PACER-derived docket aggregators (UniCourt's "Plaintiff Attorneys" list; PatSnap's counsel table), and Thomson Reuters' VitalLaw summary of the March 25, 2024 § 101 opinion credits "Jason Michael Wejnert (Devlin Law Firm LLC) for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC." I was not able to retrieve a specific docket entry (e.g., "ATTORNEY Appearance … by Jason M. Wejnert") to pin down his appearance date. Treat his role as documented but the specific filing not independently confirmed.
• Timothy Devlin, the firm's named/founding partner, handles many of the related Web 2.0 Technologies cases (e.g., he signed the amended complaints in the Delaware and Texas-side matters), but I found no evidence he entered an appearance in 1:23-cv-00230. Do not assume he was of record here.
• No in-house counsel for either plaintiff (both are non-practicing/patent-holding entities) appears on the docket.

Things worth flagging explicitly

• No separate local counsel appeared. N.D. Ill. does not require a local-counsel pairing where counsel is admitted in Illinois, and Benchell and Wejnert are both Illinois-admitted even though they practice out of Devlin's Wilmington, Delaware office. The docket shows no additional Illinois firm appearing for plaintiffs.
• Nothing appears sealed with respect to counsel identities; the appearances and the stipulation of dismissal were filed openly. The case terminated by stipulated dismissal with prejudice (Docs. 48–50), so there is no trial-team expansion or pro hac vice activity to report.
• Role labels are inferred. The docket does not formally designate "lead" vs. "of counsel." The "lead counsel" label for Benchell reflects that he signed the operative pleadings and the dismissal stipulation; internal firm designations (e.g., "of counsel") are not disclosed in any public source I found and should not be stated as fact.

Relevant experience (one line each)

• Neil A. Benchell — veteran of the Devlin firm's patent-owner practice, with appearances in the Sisvel v. Tesla and Maschio Gaspardo v. Precision Planting litigations and repeated PTAB work for patent owners.
• Jason M. Wejnert — PTAB-focused patent litigator who handled the Michigan Motor Technologies IPR responses and related N.D. Ill. infringement actions for the same firm.

Bottom line: the plaintiffs' sole counsel of record was the Devlin Law Firm LLC team of Neil A. Benchell (primary) and Jason Michael Wejnert, both operating from the firm's Wilmington, Delaware office and both Illinois-admitted.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record in this case.

Let me verify each attorney's role, firm, and office location.

Counsel of Record for Defendant 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp

Bottom line: Defendant 37signals was represented by two firms — Goodwin Procter LLP (lead patent/trial counsel, Northern California and Washington, D.C.) and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP (Chicago local counsel). Six attorneys appeared on the defense side. Note that because the case was dismissed with prejudice and is closed, these appearances are final; there is no live docket activity. A caveat up front: I was able to independently corroborate firm affiliation and role for most but not all of the six names (see the flagged item on Stephenson).

Lead / National Counsel — Goodwin Procter LLP

Local Counsel — Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP (Chicago)

Notes, caveats, and sourcing

• Party/counsel mapping. PatSnap's litigation summary states "37signals was represented by two law firms: Goodwin Procter LLP and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP," with six defense-side attorneys (Chatterjee, Diaw, Stephenson, Bova, Rossman, Catalano). UniCourt's "Defendant Attorneys" list matches those six names. VitalLaw's report of the eligibility ruling names Goodwin's Jacqueline Genovese Bova for 37Signals.
• Which is "lead." The docket/opinion materials do not expressly label "lead" vs. "local." I have classified Goodwin Procter as lead/national patent counsel and Smith, Gambrell & Russell as local counsel based on firm profile and office locations (Goodwin in CA/D.C.; Smith Gambrell in Chicago, which is the N.D. Ill. forum). This is a reasonable inference, not a docket-designated title.
• Sealed filings. I found no indication that the defense appearances were made under seal; attorney appearances are public docket entries. However, the docket listings I could retrieve (Dockets.Justia, UniCourt, PatSnap) are secondary aggregators — for a fully authoritative list you should pull the N.D. Ill. docket sheet (1:23-cv-00230) directly from PACER, which would show the exact appearance entry numbers and any pro hac vice motions.
• Known unknowns. (1) Confirmation of Amanda Elizabeth Stephenson's firm and role; (2) exact docket-entry numbers for each defense appearance; (3) whether any attorney withdrew or was substituted before the dismissal. I could not confirm any of these from the sources retrieved, so I am not asserting them.
• Firm-transition timing. Chatterjee (July 2025) and Diaw (August 2025) moved to King & Spalding after this case was resolved; their appearances here were properly attributable to Goodwin Procter. Their biographical descriptions above are drawn partly from post-departure firm announcements, which also confirm their prior Goodwin tenure.

Recommended verification path: PACER docket for 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.) → "Attorney Appearance" and any "Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice" entries; plus the Court's §101 opinion (referenced in VitalLaw) for the parties' filing counsel blocks. If you need me to pull exact docket-entry numbers, I can run a further targeted search.