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

I'll research this case across multiple sources to verify the facts.

Let me verify the docket details and research the broader litigation campaign.

Let me dig into the key rulings, the dismissal, and any PTAB activity.

I'll research this case using web searches across PACER, court records, and legal news sources.

The docket shows more activity than a simple pre-answer dismissal. Let me dig into the specific docket entries and related rulings.

Let me examine the substantive October 2023 order, the final dismissal, and any PTAB proceedings.

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. ProofHub, LLC — Legal Developments & Outcome

Case: 1:23-cv-00343-MN (D. Del., Judge Maryellen Noreika) | Patents: U.S. 6,845,448 B1 ("Online repository for personal information"; app. 09/478796, ~2000 priority) and U.S. 8,117,644 B2 ("Method and system for online document collaboration"; app. 12/799945, granted 2012-02-14)
Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (later joined by Pennar Software Corp.) | Defendant: ProofHub, LLC
Counsel: Plaintiff — Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC; Defendant — Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

An important framing point: this case was one of a coordinated wave of roughly 30 near-identical suits that Web 2.0 Technologies filed in the District of Delaware beginning in January 2023 (D. Del. Nos. 1:23-cv-00001 onward), plus parallel suits in N.D. Ill., S.D.N.Y., and later W.D. Tex. Most of the substantive motion practice described below was litigated in common across those cases, so ProofHub's docket closely tracks its siblings. Courts and analytics providers report these facts; where the underlying docket text was not retrievable, I flag it.

---

Chronology

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2023-03-27 — Complaint for patent infringement filed against ProofHub with a jury demand, asserting the '448 and '644 patents (Doc. 1). The complaint was filed concurrently with the rest of the campaign (e.g., Google, Accelo, Hive, LiquidPlanner, RealtimeBoard/Miro, TaskWorld, Workfront, Zendesk, Mango/ClickUp, Moxtra, Trello, Workzone). UnivCourt/court records confirm the filing date and Judge Noreika's assignment. (UniCourt docket summary)
• 2023-03-27/28 — Summons issued (Doc. 5); Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure "No Parents or Affiliates Listed" (Doc. 4); Patent/Trademark Report to the Commissioner listing U.S. 6,845,448 B1 and 8,117,644 B2 (Doc. 3).
• 2023-03-29 — ProofHub served (Doc. 6); answer originally due 2023-04-19.
• 2023-05-01 — Unopposed motion to extend the answer deadline to 2023-05-24, granted by Judge Noreika (Doc. 7).
• 2023-05-24 — ProofHub filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and a Motion for Joinder in Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 8), plus its Rule 7.1 disclosure (Doc. 9). The "joinder" language reflects the coordinated-defense strategy in which defendants across the campaign adopted a common dismissal theory.
• ProofHub never filed an answer and asserted no counterclaims. This is critical and is confirmed by the text of the eventual dismissal (see below). The only merits-stage defense vehicle was the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Briefing on the motion to dismiss: Plaintiff's answering brief

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

Let me dig into the actual docket entries and counsel details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. ProofHub, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00343-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line

Only one attorney appears in the plaintiff-side record for this case: Timothy Devlin of the Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware), who is simultaneously Delaware counsel and lead counsel. I found no pro hac vice admissions, no additional local counsel, and no in-house counsel on the plaintiff side. That is consistent with how this plaintiff group litigated its entire 2023 Delaware campaign — Devlin Law Firm served as both filer and merits counsel.

---

Attorney detail

---

Record support for the appearance

Devlin is the signatory on essentially every plaintiff-side filing in the docket, including:

• D.I. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement (filed 3/27/2023), jury demand (D. Del. docket via UniCourt/CourtListener).
• D.I. 4 — Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement filed by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC.
• D.I. 6 — Summons Returned Executed (served on ProofHub 3/29/2023; answer due 4/19/2023).
• D.I. 7 — Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (So Ordered by Judge Noreika 5/1/2023).
• D.I. 10 — Answering Brief in Opposition to ProofHub's Rule 12(b)(6) motion (filed 6/7/2023).
• D.I. 14 — Letter to Judge Noreika responding to the Court's oral orders regarding the Pennar Software plaintiff discrepancy (filed 10/4/2023).

Source: Patexia litigation docket for 1:23-cv-00343 (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-ProofHub-LLC-id-[187910](/patent/187910)/documents); UniCourt docket page for the same case (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu92735d7281aa-[1446790](/patent/1446790)); CourtListener D. Del. filing entry.

Similarly-signed filings by Devlin appear across the parallel Web 2.0 Technologies cases in this District and elsewhere (e.g., Web 2.0 Techs. v. Workfront, 1:23-cv-00104-MN; v. Freshworks, 1:23-cv-00108-MN; v. Zendesk, 1:23-cv-00105-MN), confirming he was the attorney of record for the campaign, not just this one case.

---

Defendant's counsel (for completeness / adversary context)

• Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE) — filed ProofHub's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (D.I. 9) and its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Joinder in Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (D.I. 8, filed 5/24/2023), plus the reply brief (D.I. 11, 6/14/2023). This is the only defense-side appearance reflected in accessible docket data.

---

Important caveats and a sourcing conflict you should know about

1. Counsel for Pennar Software Corporation specifically. The original complaint was filed by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC alone. The Court's Oral Order of 10/2/2023 (D.I. 13) pressed plaintiffs on why Pennar Software (the recorded assignee) was a plaintiff in only some of the related suits, and the docket indicates an amended complaint was later filed that would have named Pennar as co-plaintiff. I could not locate a docket entry showing a separate or additional attorney entering an appearance for Pennar Software; on the available record, Devlin is the sole plaintiff-side signature. If Pennar's co-plaintiff appearance is important to you, verify against the live PACER docket — filings in this case are not sealed, but the third-party aggregators I used do not always capture every "add attorney" notice.

2. No pro hac vice or in-house counsel found. I found no PHV motions or orders on the plaintiff side in this case. (By contrast, defense-side PHV entries are visible in other Web 2.0 cases, e.g., Winston Liaw and Victoria C. Huang for Workfront, and Adam Brausa, Annie A. Lee, and Timothy Saulsbury for Trello.) I cannot rule out that one exists but is not captured by aggregators — again, verify on PACER.

3. Conflict in the docket narrative. The case metadata provided to me (status: dismissed with prejudice; voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) "before any answer") is consistent with an AI-generated PatSnap analysis quoting a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal stating that "Defendant ProofHub, LLC has not yet answered the Complaint." However, third-party dockets also show a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (D.I. 8), an opposition (D.I. 10), a reply (D.I. 11), an oral order (D.I. 13), and an amended complaint (D.I. 18, dated 11/6/2023). These are reconcilable — under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment, and a pending 12(b) motion does not bar that — but the docket-internal inconsistency means the "no litigation activity" framing in the existing case summary is imprecise: ProofHub did move to dismiss before the dismissal. I flag this rather than paper over it.

4. Source quality. All of the above rests on third-party docket aggregators (UniCourt, Patexia, CourtListener indexes) and a litigation-intelligence blog (PatSnap). I did not have direct PACER access, and I found no Law360 or Reuters Legal coverage of this specific docket. Firm-website and Super Lawyers/WIPR material support the biographical details on Devlin. Attorneys and dates listed above are drawn from docket captions; nothing here is invented.

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

The docket shows activity beyond a bare pre-answer dismissal, so let me verify the full docket and counsel appearances.

Now let me verify the docket details on CourtListener and check for any pro hac vice or additional defendant counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendant ProofHub, LLC

Bottom line

Only one attorney appears on the public docket as counsel for ProofHub, LLC. No pro hac vice counsel, no out-of-state lead counsel, and no in-house counsel appear in any of the public docket sources I could reach.

---

Michael J. Flynn — Delaware counsel (functionally lead counsel for the defendant)

Docket grounding (all signed by Flynn on behalf of ProofHub, LLC):

• D.I. 9 — Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, "No Parents or Affiliates Listed," filed May 24, 2023 (ProofHub's first appearance)
• D.I. 8 — MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and MOTION for Joinder in Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), filed May 24, 2023
• D.I. 11 — Reply Brief in support of the motion to dismiss, filed June 14, 2023

(Source: UniCourt case page for 1:23-cv-00343; Patexia litigation record for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. ProofHub, LLC; both mirror the PACER docket.)

Patent-litigation experience: Flynn is a partner in Morris Nichols' IP Litigation Group, ranked Band 2 for Delaware Intellectual Property in Chambers USA (2026 edition, "acts as both lead and local counsel in IP litigation"; ranked since 2016) and listed in IAM Patent 1000. His firm bio states he has represented clients in more than 275 IP cases. Notable matters include Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc. (drawstring trash-bag patent — district court, Federal Circuit and Supreme Court); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. C.R. Bard (stent-graft jury verdict for Bard); f'real Foods / Rich Products (Federal Circuit affirmance of infringement verdict and injunction); Hatch-Waxman ANDA work for UCB; and patent cases for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Symantec, Agilent, and Orbitz. He was appointed to the District of Delaware's Lawyer Advisory Committee in 2022.

---

Cautions and gaps — please read before relying on this

1. No other defense counsel found. I found no pro hac vice admission, no motion for admission of out-of-state lead counsel, and no in-house or general counsel entry for ProofHub in the accessible dockets. If ProofHub retained undisclosed national counsel (common in coordinated NPE defense groups), it does not appear in the public record I could retrieve. I cannot rule that out, and I am not naming any attorney I could not source.

2. Do not confuse ProofHub's counsel with co-defendant counsel in the related Web 2.0 Technologies filings. The companion case Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Trello, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00344 (D. Del.) — filed the same day — had Adam R. Brausa, Annie A. Lee and Timothy C. Saulsbury admitted pro hac vice in October 2023. Those attorneys appeared for Trello, not ProofHub. Similarly, Web 2.0 Technologies v. Workfront, No. 1:23-cv-00104, had Winston Liaw and Victoria C. Huang admitted PHV for Workfront. ProofHub's Rule 12(b)(6) motion did include a "Motion for Joinder in Motions to Dismiss" — indicating coordination with the other Web 2.0 defendants — but that coordination does not create a counsel appearance for ProofHub.

3. Discrepancy with the case summary re: the dismissal sequence. The case metadata states the action was dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) "before any answer." The public docket shows ProofHub did appear and litigate — Flynn filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (D.I. 8), a Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 9), and a reply (D.I. 11), and Judge Noreika entered an order resolving the pending motions to dismiss on October 5, 2023 (D.I. 15), after issuing an October 2, 2023 oral order pressing plaintiffs on the missing Pennar Software Corporation plaintiff. The two accounts are reconcilable: Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits unilateral dismissal at any time before the adverse party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not close that window. So a later pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice is procedurally consistent with ProofHub having appeared and litigated a motion to dismiss.

4. Sourcing weakness on the dismissal notice itself. The verbatim text of the voluntary-dismissal notice is quoted on a PatSnap litigation blog (an AI-generated summary page) attributing it to "PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00343." I could not independently verify that quoted text against a primary PACER docket sheet or CourtListener entry, and PatSnap's pages are syndicated in multiple languages with translation artifacts (e.g., "Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell S.A.S."). Treat the exact wording of the dismissal notice as unverified; the fact of a with-prejudice dismissal is consistent across the case metadata and the aggregator records.

5. Also unverified/possible docket noise: Patexia lists a D.I. 18 "Amended Complaint" dated November 6, 2023 in this case number. If accurate, that post-dates the October 5, 2023 order and would sit oddly with an eventual Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal. I could not confirm that entry's content, and it may be a mis-mapped docket line from a companion Web 2.0 case. Flagging it rather than asserting it.

Confidence: High that Michael J. Flynn of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP was the defendant's counsel of record — he is the only attorney who signed defendant-side filings, and both UniCourt's attorney field and PatSnap's party/representation table identify him and Morris Nichols independently. Moderate-to-low confidence that no other defense counsel existed, given that I could not access a primary PACER docket sheet directly.