Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Google LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the parallel campaign, and any IPR activity.

Let me research the patent family, expiration, the broader NPE campaign, and IPR activity.

Case Overview: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00340 (D. Del.)

The parties and what they do. The plaintiff, Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC, is a patent-assertion entity (NPE/PAE) — Stanford's NPE database classifies it as an "Acquired patents" asserter — that holds rights to a two-patent portfolio and has monetized it through serial litigation. It is frequently joined by Pennar Software Corporation, the entity named on the face of both patents as original assignee; Stanford classifies Pennar as an "Individual-inventor-started" patent asserter (i.e., the patents trace to a single inventor's family), and Patsnap describes it as an operating/licensing company. Notably, in this Google case the Rule 7.1 disclosure was filed only by Web 2.0 Technologies ("No Parents or Affiliates Listed," D.I. 4), and the complaint named only Web 2.0 — even though Pennar is the recorded assignee of both patents. Judge Noreika later flagged exactly this discrepancy across the campaign in an Oct. 2, 2023 oral order in the related Delaware suits, asking plaintiff to explain why Pennar was omitted as a plaintiff in most cases when it is "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents" (cited in Web 2.0 Techs. v. Mango Techs., D.I. 16). That omission raises a potential standing/joinder issue. Plaintiff's counsel is Timothy Devlin of the Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington). Defendant Google LLC is the operating technology company; no defense counsel appears on the docket because Google was never served and never appeared.

The asserted patents and the accused technology. Two patents are asserted, both sharing a common January 7, 2000 priority date and both originally assigned to Pennar Software Corporation: (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 B1, "Online Repository for Personal Information" — a method/system for gathering and storing a user's personal information on a server and selectively releasing it to authorized requesters, with update notifications and a "junk requester" block; and (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 B2, "Method and System for Online Document Collaboration" — a server-based method for storing a user's document, imposing access restrictions, verifying a second user's identity before permitting edits, and recording approvals/disapprovals (a continuation filed May 5, 2010, issued Feb. 14, 2012). Both are characterized as early "Web 2.0" software patents. The complaint alleged direct and joint infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271) of "at least Claim 1" of each patent via the "'448 Accused Instrumentalities" and similarly for the '644, but the publicly available sources do not identify the specific Google products by name (UniCourt's complaint summary uses only the placeholder term); Patsnap's product field simply repeats the patent titles, a database artifact. Given the campaign's target set — Basecamp, Miro, Zendesk, Nulab, Accelo, ProofHub, Hive, Mango — the presumptive accused technology is Google's collaboration/workspace offerings (e.g., Docs/Drive), but that is inference, not a sourced fact, and I flag it as unverified.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed March 27, 2023 in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika (D.I. 1–5). Delaware is a magnet venue for NPE suits (experienced patent bench, local rules, short time-to-trial), and Web 2.0 Technologies filed a coordinated wave there in early 2023 (e.g., Zendesk 1:23-cv-00105, Accelo 1:23-cv-00001, Hive 1:23-cv-00002, Mango, ProofHub 1:23-cv-00343), plus cases elsewhere (37signals/Basecamp, N.D. Ill. 1:23-cv-00230; Nulab, S.D.N.Y.), and a second wave in W.D. Tex. in Feb. 2025 against hospital systems (Baylor Scott & White, Ascension, Advent Health, Seton, Methodist). Critically, the Google case was never served: after the 90-day Rule 4(m) window lapsed, Judge Noreika issued an Order to Show Cause on Aug. 31, 2023 (D.I. 6) requiring a return of service or good cause; instead, on Sept. 8, 2023, Web 2.0 Technologies filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (D.I. 7), and the case was closed that day (D.I. 8). This "file-and-fold" pattern — file against a deep-pocket defendant without serving, then dismiss without prejudice — is a classic placeholder/tolling tactic. Note the discrepancy with the case metadata: the docket shows this action is closed, not pending; because the dismissal was without prejudice, plaintiff could technically refile (subject to the statute of limitations). The case is notable for three reasons: (i) it is the marquee defendant in a broad NPE campaign asserting two expired-era software patents across SaaS and healthcare; (ii) a merits ruling in a parallel case went against the portfolio — in Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals (N.D. Ill., Judge Blakey, Mar. 25, 2024) the court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion holding both patents invalid under § 101 Alice, finding them directed to the abstract idea of storing/controlling access to information with no inventive concept (later dismissed with prejudice); and (iii) on the IPR point, the sources I reviewed state no IPR/PGR or other PTAB validity challenge has been recorded against either patent (Patsnap: "Validity challenges: None recorded"), so the § 101 exposure is being litigated in district court rather than at the PTAB.

Sourcing caveats: Party names, the March 27, 2023 filing date, Judge Noreika's assignment, the Aug. 31, 2023 order to show cause, and the Sept. 8, 2023 voluntary dismissal are all confirmed by docket-derived records (Patexia docket listing and UniCourt's PACER summary). The broader campaign and the 37signals § 101 ruling are drawn from CourtListener/Justia, VitalLaw, and Patsnap litigation reports. Things I could not verify and therefore treat as unsourced: the specific Google accused products, any settlement/back-damages theory, and whether the patents were expired at filing (Patsnap lists an estimated expiry of Jan. 7, 2020 for the '644 based on the 2000 priority date, which — if accurate — would mean the suit could only reach pre-expiration back damages under 35 U.S.C. § 286; I could not independently confirm expiration or any term extension). The exact composition of the plaintiff side in the Google case also deserves direct PACER confirmation, since the caption's "et al." does not match the docket's single-plaintiff filings.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches against multiple sources.

Key finding already: this case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed. Let me verify the details and explore the broader campaign and any PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line up front

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00340-MN (D. Del.) never had a merits phase. It was filed 2023‑03‑27 and terminated 2023‑09‑08 by a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, entered while the case was still at the pre‑answer, pre‑service stage — and, notably, only after Judge Noreika issued an order to show cause about the plaintiff's failure to serve Google within the 90 days required by Rule 4(m).

There is, therefore, no answer, no counterclaims, no motion to dismiss/transfer/stay, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no verdict, no post‑trial motions, no appeal, and no settlement filed on the docket in this particular case. I also found no IPR/PGR at the PTAB on either asserted patent (U.S. 6,845,448 or 8,117,644). The metadata field in the case header ("status: pending/other") is a stale docket‑summary artifact — the court's own docket reflects "CASE CLOSED" as of 2023‑09‑08.

The real legal significance of this case lies not in the Google docket itself but in (a) the multi‑defendant Web 2.0 assertion campaign of which it was a part, and (b) the fact that both asserted patents appear to have expired around 2020‑01‑07, which I discuss below because it plausibly explains the campaign's rapid, pre‑answer collapse.

---

Chronology — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC (1:23‑cv‑00340‑MN)

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2023‑03‑27 to 2023‑03‑29)

The complaint asserted two counts — one per patent — pleading direct and joint infringement (i.e., jointly with Google's users/customers) under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and alleging infringement of at least Claim 1 of each patent. Accused products are described generically (the Patsnap litigation record characterizes them as "Method and system for online document collaboration" and "Online repository for personal information" — i.e., the patents' own titles), with boilerplate reserving the right to amend infringement theories as discovery progressed. Plaintiff sought a declaration of infringement, damages, fees, and interest.

Key pleading observation: although the case caption in your metadata lists Pennar Software Corp. as a co‑plaintiff, the D. Del. Google docket shows Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC as the sole plaintiff — only Web 2.0's Rule 7.1 statement was filed (D.I. 4), and only Web 2.0 filed the dismissal (D.I. 7). Pennar was not a party here at the time of dismissal.

2. The service failure and order to show cause (2023‑08‑31)

No return of service was ever filed. Five months into the case, on 2023‑08‑31, Judge Noreika issued:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — "on or before 9/8/2023, Plaintiff shall: (1) File a return of service (or an executed waiver of service) indicating that service on Defendant was made within the 90 days prescribed by Rule 4(m); or (2) show good cause for (a) the failure to serve Defendant and (b) why the Court should extend the deadline for service (and for how long)." (D.I. 6)

This is the pivotal event in the case. It is the procedural trigger that produced the dismissal eight days later.

3. Disposition — voluntary dismissal without prejudice (2023‑09‑08)

On 2023‑09‑08 — the OSC response deadline — plaintiff filed:

D.I. 7 — NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC as to Defendant Google, LLC, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), "without prejudice," reciting that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint," and stating "Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

The same day the clerk entered "CASE CLOSED" and filed D.I. 8 (Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks with the dismissal attached).

Legal effect: A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is without prejudice and, by the rule's terms, would ordinarily not bar refiling — BUT Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that if the plaintiff has previously dismissed any federal‑ or state‑court action based on the same claim, the second dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. Given the breadth of the Web 2.0 campaign (see below), that "two‑dismissals" trap is a real consideration for any refiling strategy, though I found no record of Google being re‑sued on these patents.

Practical takeaway: Google spent five months as a nominal defendant, never appeared, never answered, and never paid anything on the public record. The dismissal was unilateral — Google's consent was not needed and no consideration appears on the docket. That is consistent with (but does not prove) the plaintiff simply abandoning the case rather than reaching a paid resolution. Unlike several sibling cases in this campaign (see below), this dismissal was without prejudice — a meaningful distinction, and arguably a sign of a retreat rather than a negotiated exit.

4. Pre‑trial motions, Markman, discovery, trial, post‑trial, appeal

None occurred. The case closed 165 days after filing with no answer on file. There was no Rule 12 motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion (Google is a Delaware corporation, so transfer would have been uphill anyway), no stay‑pending‑IPR motion, no § 101 motion, no claim construction, no scheduling order, no discovery, no expert reports, no trial, and no appeal.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding at the PTAB on U.S. 6,845,448 or U.S. 8,117,644. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database's patent pages for both patents record "Validity challenges: None recorded", and no IPR numbers referencing either patent surfaced in searches of PTAB filings. This is unsurprising given the extremely short pre‑answer life of the litigation — Google had no reason to petition, and any petition would have been mooted by the dismissal. There was likewise no stay‑pending‑IPR motion in this case (by contrast, the Workzone sibling case, 1:23‑cv‑00345, did see a joint motion to stay filed 2023‑05‑23).

There is a Google connection worth noting but not overreading: Google's own PCT publication WO 2012/125294 A3 (e‑book service with users' personal content) cites both U.S. 6,845,448 B1 and U.S. 8,117,644 B2 as background art. That is a citation, not a validity challenge.

---

Critical strategic context: the "expired patent" problem

This is, in my assessment, the single most important unstated fact about this case — and a well‑sourced one from the patent bibliographic record, though the causal link to the dismissals is my inference and is flagged as such:

• U.S. 6,845,448 — filed 2000‑01‑07 (App. 09/478,796), issued 2005‑01‑18. Twenty‑year term from filing ⇒ expired on or about 2020‑01‑07 (subject to any terminal disclaimer/extension).
• U.S. 8,117,644 — issued 2012‑02‑14 (App. 12/799,945, a continuation in the same family claiming priority to the 2000 filing) — Patsnap's patent record lists an estimated expiry of 2020‑01‑07 and a legal status of "Inactive."

If accurate, then when Web 2.0 filed this wave of suits in 2023, the asserted patents were already expired. Recovery would have been limited to past damages within the § 286 six‑year lookback (roughly 2017‑01 to 2020‑01), with no injunctive relief available. That materially deflates settlement leverage and would explain both the campaign's high‑volume/low‑value design (Seyfarth Shaw's NPE Showcase, 2023‑04‑04, described these as "cases [that] last only a few months, suggesting a cost‑of‑defense settlement") and, at least plausibly, why a well‑resourced defendant like Google was simply dropped rather than pressed. I have not found a court or PTAB ruling confirming expiry as the reason, so treat the causal link as inference; the expiry dates themselves come from patent bibliographic data and should be verified against the USPTO Patent Center/Patent Term Adjustment records before being relied on.

---

The broader Web 2.0 Technologies campaign — where the substantive law actually got made

Because the Google case produced no rulings, the legally meaningful developments on these two patents happened in sibling cases. The campaign was coordinated before Judge Noreika in D. Del. (all filed January–March 2023), with additional suits elsewhere:

D. Del. cohort (Judge Noreika): Accelo (1:23‑cv‑00001), Hive Technology (1:23‑cv‑00002), LiquidPlanner (1:23‑cv‑00003), RealtimeBoard/Miro (1:23‑cv‑00004), TaskWorld (1:23‑cv‑00042), Web 2.0 Technologies, Inc. v. Workfront (1:23‑cv‑00104), Zendesk (1:23‑cv‑00105), Mango Technologies (1:23‑cv‑00107), Freshworks (1:23‑cv‑00108

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me search additional angles: patent numbers, PTAB challenges, and trade press coverage.

Press and analyst coverage of Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Google LLC (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00340)

Bottom line: this case generated essentially no news coverage. Across searches on the caption, the party names, both asserted patent numbers, the docket number, and the plaintiff's broader campaign, I found no articles from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently‑O, EFF, or any other newsroom reporting on this specific suit. What exists is (a) one law‑firm commentary piece about the plaintiff entity, (b) litigation‑analytics vendor write‑ups, and (c) coverage of sister cases asserting the same two patents against other defendants.

The closest thing to press/commentary is a Seyfarth Shaw LLP installment in its "NPE Showcase" series profiling Web 2.0 Technologies, published on Lexology (dated 2023-04-04) and republished on Mondaq (2023-04-17). Seyfarth described the entity as "similar to other NPEs, asserting two patents against well-known companies for technology that has been around since the turn of the millennium," with accused products being "software that gathers and stores personal information and preferences, then grants certain users access rights to that information." The key analytical claim — which goes beyond the court record and is the author's inference — is that "[t]heir cases last only a few months, suggesting a cost-of-defense settlement that is the hallmark of nuisance-based patent troll litigation," and that the entity "is apparently inventor-controlled." Seyfarth also flagged as unknown "how Web 2.0 Technologies receives its funding," i.e., whether third-party litigation finance is behind the campaign. The piece is a campaign-level profile; my search results did not surface any passage naming Google specifically, so I cannot attribute a Google-specific statement to it.

On the outcome, only data/aggregator sources report anything: Patsnap's litigation blog states the action was filed 2023-03-27 and closed 2023-09-08 (165 days) on a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal, quoting the notice's language that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint" and that "[e]ach party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees." Patexia's docket page confirms docket entries 7 (notice of voluntary dismissal, 2023-09-08) and 6 (Judge Noreika's 2023-08-31 order to show cause why service had not been effected within Rule 4(m)'s 90 days) — which is consistent with a case that was never served and never answered. Notably, UniCourt's case page still displays "Pending – Other Pending" (last updated 2023-05-26), so the aggregator record is stale and conflicts with the dismissal/closing reported by Patsnap and the docket extract. No damages figure, settlement amount, license, or market impact has been reported anywhere I could find; the only financial characterization is Seyfarth's unsourced speculation about "cost-of-defense settlement[s]" across the campaign.

Coverage of the same patents in parallel cases is where the substance is. Casetext and VitalLaw carry Judge Blakey's N.D. Ill. opinion in Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals LLC (2024-03-25) holding claim 1 of both the '448 and '644 patents representative and ineligible under Alice step one (storing/disbursing personal information and online document collaboration as abstract ideas), dismissing without prejudice. That ruling is a directly relevant data point for the Google case's patents — though it postdates Google's dismissal. Separately, a PacerMonitor docket extract shows Judge Noreika, in the related D. Del. Workfront case, sua sponte ordering plaintiff to explain why Pennar Software Corporation — the recorded assignee on the face of both patents — was not a plaintiff in most of the Delaware Web 2.0 cases, a discrepancy the metadata's inclusion of Pennar as a co-plaintiff here reflects. Counsel of record per the aggregators: Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC) for Web 2.0 Technologies; I found no reported appearance for Google, consistent with the case never progressing past service.

Caveats: every source above is a law-firm alert, a litigation-analytics vendor page, or a docket aggregator — none is independent journalism, and none reported on the Google suit as a news event. I could not verify a Google-specific statement from the Seyfarth piece, and the existence of a settlement (as opposed to a purely procedural dismissal for failure to serve) is unsupported by anything I found.

Sources

• Web 2.0 Technologies v. Google | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00340 - Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Google, LLC
• Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC - This case was last updated from U
• PersonalWeb contends that the claims are directed to “a substantially unique, algorithm-derived, content-based identifier for al...
• NPE Showcase – Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC - ARTICLE
• Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Google Patent Infringement Suit - AEON Law
• NPE Showcase - Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC - Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
• Walker Digital LLC v
• NPE Showcase – Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC - ARTICLE
• 1:23-cv-00340 | Web 20 Tech LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• Claim 1 of the '342 patent8 requires "generating a mobile web site" and that such mobile web site be "configured to r...
• Wireless Ink attempts to controvert these asserted statements of fact by repeating—twenty-two times in total—the same flawed leg...
• Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC., d/b/a Basecamp - This case was last updated from U

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this D. Del. patent case. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and any additional counsel.

Let me check the complaint itself and CourtListener docket for any other attorneys of record.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff(s) — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 1:23-cv-00340 (D. Del.)

Bottom line

The docket in this case records a single attorney of record for the plaintiff side: Timothy Devlin of the Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware). No other plaintiff-side attorney (local, of counsel, or in-house) appears in the filings, and the case was dismissed before Google answered, so no defendant counsel ever entered an appearance that would require comparison. Because the litigation lasted only ~165 days and closed on a pre-answer voluntary dismissal, the counsel roster is unusually thin.

Plaintiff's counsel

Every plaintiff-side signature on the docket — the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Doc. 4), and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 7) — was filed by / attributed to Devlin, Timothy of the Devlin Law Firm. Aggregated docket mirrors (Patexia, Patsnap) independently list Devlin as the only "counsel of record," with his role recorded as "Plaintiff."

Important caveats

• No additional appearances. There is no recorded pro hac vice motion, no second local counsel, and no in-house counsel on the plaintiff side in this docket. This is consistent with Devlin Law Firm's standard practice in the Web 2.0 Technologies NPE campaign, where Devlin filed the complaints himself across dozens of parallel suits.
• "Et al." plaintiff. The caption lists Pennar Software Corp. alongside Web 2.0 Technologies, but the complaint as filed and docketed in this action was brought by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC; Judge Noreika separately noted in related Web 2.0 cases that Pennar (the record assignee of the '448 and '644 patents) was not a plaintiff in most of the District of Delaware filings. If Pennar was nominally a plaintiff here, it was represented by the same Devlin firm — no separate counsel appears. I could not verify a separate Pennar appearance from the available docket mirrors.
• Defendant side. Google never answered; the case was dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on September 8, 2023 (Doc. 7), before any Google appearance, so no defense counsel of record exists.
• Source limitation. D. Del. CM/ECF itself was not directly accessible for this query; the roster above is drawn from the RECAP/PACER-derived docket mirrors (Patexia, Patsnap, CourtListener/UniCourt) and Devlin Law Firm's own website/World IP Review profile. I did not find any sealed filings bearing on counsel, and I want to be explicit that I am not inventing any co-counsel, local counsel, or in-house attorney that the record does not show.

Practical takeaway

For this specific case, the plaintiff-side counsel picture is simply Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE), lead and sole counsel of record. Anyone seeking plaintiff's representation across the broader Web 2.0 Technologies campaign should expect the same single-firm, single-lead-counsel structure.

I'll research whether any defense counsel appeared for Google in this case, and check for any related or successor proceedings where Google counsel might be identifiable.

The docket mirrors show only 8 entries and no defense appearance. Let me verify there was no later refiling against Google and check whether Google appeared in any sibling Web 2.0 campaign case.

No defense appearance surfaced. Let me run two final confirmation checks — a possible refiling elsewhere and the Full docket via CourtListener/Exparte.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00340-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line: there is no defense counsel of record — Google never appeared

The short, honest answer is that this case has no defendant-side attorney of record, because Google LLC was never served and never entered an appearance. The docket contains no notice of appearance, no Rule 83.5 pro hac vice motion, no corporate disclosure statement, no answer, and no responsive filing of any kind on Google's behalf. The complete docket — eight entries over the case's 165-day life — does not include a single defense-side document:

Source: Patexia docket listing; Patsnap litigation record (its counsel-of-record table lists only "Timothy Devlin | Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff," and lists Google's counsel field as "Not recorded"); Ex Parte litigation lab (status: Closed).

The dismissal notice itself is the dispositive proof that no defense appearance existed: it recites that it is filed "at any time before service of an answer by the adverse party" and that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint." A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is only available before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's own filing confirms Google had filed nothing. Judge Noreika's Aug. 31, 2023 order to show cause — requiring a return of service or good cause for the Rule 4(m) failure — further confirms that Google had not been served, let alone represented.

Defendant-side counsel table

What I checked and what I could not confirm

• No notice of appearance for Google LLC in any docket mirror (Patexia, Patsnap, UniCourt, Ex Parte).
• No pro hac vice motion, no local counsel, no in-house counsel, no corporate disclosure statement by Google.
• No later appearance or revivification: I found no record of this suit being refiled against Google on the '448/'644 patents, and no successor case where a Google defense team would have been disclosed. If a refiling occurred after my search window, the defense roster there would be a separate question — but nothing indicates one exists.
• Not attributable from parallel litigation: In the sibling Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals case (N.D. Ill. 1:23-cv-00230), which did reach the merits, the defendant's counsel was Jacqueline Genovese Bova (Goodwin Procter LLP) — but that is 37signals' counsel, not Google's, and I am expressly not transposing it onto this case. See VitalLaw IP Law Daily, Mar. 28, 2024. I found no filing that identifies Google's chosen counsel for this campaign.
• No sealed filings: the docket shows no sealed documents bearing on appearances, so the absence of defense counsel is not a sealing artifact — it reflects the case's pre-service death.

Why this matters (cross-referencing the prior sections)

This is consistent with, and reinforces, two points already established in the earlier sections of this case file:

1. It confirms the "file-and-fold, never-serve" characterization. Because service was never effected, Google was a nominal defendant only from March 27 to September 8, 2023, and incurred no disclosed litigation cost — no answer, no responsive motion, no defense team on the record. The defendant-counsel section is empty precisely because the case was abandoned at the Rule 4(m) threshold.

2. It flags, rather than resolves, the "et al." caption discrepancy. The metadata caption lists Pennar Software Corp. as a co-plaintiff, and Judge Noreika separately questioned Pennar's omission across the D. Del. campaign (Order in Web 2.0 Techs. v. Mango Techs., D.I. 16, cited previously). That discrepancy affects the plaintiff roster only — it does not change the defendant-side answer, which is that no one represented Google here.

Practical takeaway for anyone researching this docket: for the Google action specifically, there is no defense-side roster to report. Counsel for Google in this matter does not exist on the public record; the only attorney of record in the entire case is Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington) for the plaintiff. Any assertion that a specific firm or attorney represented Google in this case would be unsupported by the docket and should not be relied upon.