Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Nulab, Inc.

I'll research this case and the parties involved.

Good initial results. Let me dig into the parties' businesses, the patents' provenance, and the broader litigation campaign.

Let me check the patent specifics and any PTAB/IPR activity.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. The plaintiffs are Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and, after amendment, Pennar Software Corporation. Web 2.0 Technologies is a non-practicing entity — Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a "Non Practicing Entity" asserting "acquired patents," while Lexology's NPE Showcase series described it as an apparently inventor-controlled asserter (i.e., the patent owners themselves funding enforcement rather than an outside litigation-finance buyer), and noted that its cases "last only a few months, suggesting a cost-of-defense settlement that is the hallmark of nuisance-based patent troll litigation." Pennar Software Corp. is the assignee of record on the face of both asserted patents and was added as a co-plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 21, filed July 12, 2023) as "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents." The defendant, Nulab, Inc. (Japan: 株式会社ヌーラボ), is a genuine operating company — a Fukuoka-based SaaS collaboration-software vendor founded in 2004, publicly listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Growth Market since June 2022 (ticker 5033), with roughly ¥4.4B (~$29M) in annual revenue and products including Backlog (project/task management), Cacoo (online diagramming/visual collaboration), Typetalk (business chat), and Nulab Pass (security/governance). Its U.S. subsidiary, Nulab USA, Inc., is based in New York — the likely hook for venue — and Nulab, Inc. was served on March 28, 2023 through Registered Agents Inc. (Dkt. 10).

Accused technology and patents. The suit targeted Nulab's web-based collaboration platform — the functionality that lets users create, share, comment on, version, and collaboratively edit documents and diagrams in a hosted environment (Backlog and Cacoo are the natural fit, though I could not verify

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and party/patent background.

Let me dig into the full docket, the related earlier case, and any PTAB challenges.

Let me get the complete docket (docs 15–18 are missing) and check PTAB for challenges to these patents.

Litigation chronology — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Nulab, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02589 (S.D.N.Y., Engelmayer, J.)

Note on sourcing: this case lived barely four months and never produced a written opinion. Everything below comes from the docket record (Justia/Patexia/Unified Patents mirrors of PACER), the related-case dockets, and the reasoning in parallel Web 2.0 cases. I hit search-tool limits before I could pull docket entries 15–18; where I flag an inference, it is flagged.

---

1. Pre-history: the "wrong plaintiff name" case (Jan–Mar 2023)

• 2023-01-13 — The campaign first sued Nulab as Web 2.0 Technologies, Inc. v. Nulab Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00339 (S.D.N.Y., also assigned to Judge Engelmayer), asserting U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,845,448 (online repository for personal information) and 8,117,644 (online document collaboration), with a jury demand. Counsel: Andrew Swanson Brown; Christopher Laurence May later appeared.
• 2023-03-29 — Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in 23-cv-339; the AO-120 case-termination form issued 2023-03-30. The notice recited that Nulab had never been served or answered. The real reason was a corporate-name defect: the plaintiff was "Inc.," not "LLC."
  • Patexia docket: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-Inc-v-Nulab-Inc-id-[185361](/patent/185361)/documents
  • Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv00339

2. Filing & initial pleadings of the operative case (Mar–Jul 2023)

• 2023-03-27 — Complaint filed as No. 1:23-cv-02589 by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC against Nulab, Inc. (Dkt. 1, with Exhibits 1–2 — the two patents). § 271 infringement, jury demand. This was filed the same day as a wave of Delaware complaints by the same plaintiff (e.g., Web 2.0 Techs. v. Google, No. 1:23-cv-00340 (D. Del.)).
  • Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv02589/[596288](/patent/596288)
• 2023-03-28 — Summons issued (Dkt. 7); Nulab served the same day via registered agent (Tiffany Sala, Registered Agents Inc.) — Dkt. 10, filed 4/5/2023. Original answer deadline 4/18/2023

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

Let me dig deeper into the specific counsel appearances and the plaintiffs' firms.

Let me check for additional appearances and the full docket on CourtListener.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiffs (Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC & Pennar Software Corp.)

Short answer

The public docket for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Nulab, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02589 (S.D.N.Y.), shows a single plaintiff-side attorney of record: Christopher Laurence (L.) May of Devlin Law Firm LLC. Every substantive filing attributed to the plaintiffs in this docket was filed by May, and no separate local counsel or co-counsel notice of appearance appears in the retrieved record.

Attorney detail

Christopher Laurence May — lead counsel (sole attorney of record shown)

• Firm / office: Devlin Law Firm LLC. Firm is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware (1526 Gilpin Ave.); May is associated with the firm's Washington, D.C. practice and is admitted in New York, so he could appear in S.D.N.Y. without a separate pro hac vice application. (Devlin Law Firm bio; Martindale)
• Role: Filed the original Complaint (Dkt. 1, Mar. 27, 2023), the First Amended Complaint adding Pennar Software Corp. (Dkt. 20/21, July 11–12, 2023), the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (Dkt. 22, July 14, 2023), and the Joint Motion to Stay and Notice of Settlement (Dkt. 25, Aug. 2, 2023) — i.e., he litigated the case start to finish for plaintiffs. (Unified Patents docket; Patexia docket)
• Notable experience: ~20 years of patent/trademark litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants; partner and Co-Chair of Devlin's ITC (Section 337) practice; former McDermott Will & Emery and Fish & Neave associate; adjunct professor at University of Maryland and Dayton; J.D./M.B.A. Univ. of Chicago, M.S. Chemistry MIT; admitted NY, D.C., Va., Fed. Cir., 10th Cir., and USPTO. Recognized in Best Lawyers in America (2016–2022). Notably, he is not admitted in Delaware, which is why he practices through the Delaware-headquartered firm but files in N.Y. (Devlin bio; Law360 attorney page)

Related / prior case — possible additional counsel

This case is the refiling of an earlier, short-lived action, Web 2.0 Technologies, Inc. v. Nulab Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00339 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Jan. 13, 2023; voluntarily dismissed Mar. 29, 2023 — before service/answer). In that earlier docket, two plaintiff attorneys appear:

• Andrew Swanson Brown (listed with Crow & Pitcher PLLC) — filed the original complaint and summons request.
• Christopher Laurence May (Devlin Law Firm) — filed a notice of appearance and the voluntary dismissal.

⚠️ Caveat: Brown appears only on the earlier 00339 docket, not on the 02589 docket retrieved here. I did not find evidence he entered an appearance in the 02589 action. Treat any suggestion that he is counsel in 02589 as unconfirmed. (Justia docket 00339; Patsnap summary)

Caveats on completeness

• No separate local counsel identified. S.D.N.Y. does not require pro hac vice with local sponsorship for NY-barred attorneys, and May is NY-admitted, so it is plausible he served as his own local counsel. No other firm (e.g., a NY firm) is identified as plaintiff-side counsel in the retrieved docket.
• No in-house counsel shown. The plaintiffs are NPE/patent-holding entities (Web 2.0 Technologies is a non-practicing entity; Pennar Software Corp. is the named assignee on the two asserted patents, U.S. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644). No in-house attorney appears on the public docket.
• Docket currency. The docket I could retrieve was last updated Aug. 2, 2023 (case terminated that day). Because the case settled and was dismissed within ~4 months, the paper record is thin; newer PACER-only entries, if any, may not be reflected in the free aggregators I searched.
• Defendant's counsel (for contrast only): Robert L. Maier (notice of appearance, Dkt. 11, Apr. 13, 2023) entered for Nulab — not a plaintiff-side attorney.

If you need to confirm there were no additional plaintiff appearances (e.g., a second Devlin associate), that would require pulling the PACER docket sheet directly, as the free mirrors show only May filing on plaintiffs' behalf.

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

Now let me research the two defendant-side attorneys who appeared.

Let me verify the docket entries and check for any additional appearances or pro hac vice admissions.

Defense counsel of record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Nulab, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02589 (S.D.N.Y.)

Bottom line: Two attorneys appeared for Nulab, Inc., both partners in the New York office of Baker Botts L.L.P. Both are New York-admitted and appeared by ordinary Notice of Appearance — no pro hac vice motions, no separate local counsel, and no in-house counsel ever entered on the docket.

Attorney appearances on the docket

Source: docket sheet for 1:23-cv-02589 (Dockets.Justia / Patexia / Unified Patents litigation portal; docket last retrieved Aug. 2, 2023).

---

Robert Lawrence Maier — lead/principal defense counsel

• Role: Appearing counsel for Nulab; the de facto lead. He is the attorney who actually worked the case — he signed the consent letter motion for extension of time to answer the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23, filed July 25, 2023), which Judge Engelmayer granted the same day (Dkt. 24), and he is the Baker Botts attorney whose firm bio lists the Nulab representation.
• Firm / office: Baker Botts L.L.P., 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112. Partner; Chair of the firm's New York Intellectual Property group.
• Admissions: New York (2003); S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y.; Federal Circuit; registered to practice before the USPTO. J.D. Fordham (2002); B.S. Computer Engineering, George Washington University — worked as a software engineer in telecom before law school, which lines up well with the internet/database technology at issue here.
• Patent litigation experience: Chambers USA Band 3 (New York patent); IAM Patent 1000. Representative work includes 13 PTAB IPRs for Samsung against Netlist (nine consecutive wins invalidating all challenged claims), Samsung defense in E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex., Fujifilm ITC investigations (337-TA-1012/1036/1058/1076), Motorola Solutions ITC 337-TA-1281, and defense of American Honda, Ricoh, and Avigilon. Baker Botts' site expressly lists "Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Nulab Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) — Representation of Nulab in patent infringement case related to internet and database technologies."
• Sources: Chambers profile; Baker Botts bio; Martindale.

Jennifer Cozeolino Tempesta — co-counsel (second appearing attorney)

• Role: Of the defense team as co-counsel/partner; she filed the parallel Notice of Appearance (Dkt. 13) on the same day as Maier. No filing in this docket is signed by her, so her involvement was supervisory/strategic — a common pairing where a senior partner appears alongside the matter lead.
• Firm / office: Baker Botts L.L.P., New York, NY (30 Rockefeller Plaza). Partner; Deputy Department Chair – Intellectual Property (firmwide).
• Admissions: New York; S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y.; E.D. Tex.; USPTO registered (Reg. No. 59,021); U.S. Supreme Court; Federal Circuit. J.D. Cardozo (2005, cum laude); former Alexander Judicial Fellow to Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, Federal Circuit; B.S. Chemistry, George Washington.
• Patent litigation experience: Chambers USA Band 4 (New York patent), 2021–2026; IAM Patent 1000. First-chair trial experience, including a New York jury trial for Mastercard; Fujifilm ITC and district court matters; Lyft district court patent actions and the related IPRs — she briefed the Federal Circuit cross-appeal in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., Nos. 2023-2033 et al. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2025); and NEC patent assertion matters. She and Maier also appeared together on the Federal Circuit Rule 36 disposition in Appeal No. 22-1379 (Jan. 18, 2023), alongside Baker Botts' Eric J. Faragi.
• Sources: Baker Botts bio; Chambers profile.

---

Caveats and things to flag explicitly

1. No formal "lead counsel" designation exists. S.D.N.Y. does not require one, and no party-designation filing appears. The "lead" characterization above rests on docket conduct (Maier signed the operative defense filing and is the firm's named relationship attorney), not on a court order.
2. No in-house counsel appeared. No appearance was ever filed by Nulab legal personnel.
3. Nothing is sealed. The docket is entirely public; the reason there is so little defense-side paper is that the case settled roughly four months after service, before Nulab answered.
4. Related earlier case — no defense counsel ever appeared. Nulab was previously sued by the same plaintiff family in Web 2.0 Technologies, Inc. v. Nulab Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00339 (S.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 13, 2023, also before Judge Engelmayer). That case was voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on March 29, 2023 — before Nulab appeared, so there is no counsel of record for Nulab in 00339. The 02589 action, filed March 27, 2023 by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Pennar Software Corp., is the operative case and the one with the Baker Botts appearances.
5. Counsel may have since moved. Both bios above are current as of 2026 and both remain at Baker Botts, so no move is apparent — but I could not retrieve a 2023-vintage confirmation of either attorney's firm at the exact time of the August 2023 settlement.
6. Attorneys I did not identify as involved. Various search hits returned unrelated "Maier" and "Tempesta" attorneys at other firms (e.g., Cosmin Maier of Desmarais LLP); none of those is counsel here. The only two names on the Nulab defense docket are Maier and Tempesta.