Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Realtimeboard, Inc. d/b/a Miro

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the patents themselves and the broader litigation campaign.

Case Overview & Background

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Realtimeboard, Inc. d/b/a Miro, No. 1:23-cv-00004-MN (D. Del.), was a two-patent infringement action pitting a small patent-assertion pair against one of the best-known software-as-a-service collaboration platforms. The plaintiffs are Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (a Texas entity) and Pennar Software Corporation (a Virginia entity). Pennar is the named assignee on the face of both patents and the two entities brought suit jointly. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies these asserters under "individual-inventor-started" and "acquired patents" categories, i.e., a non-practicing/patent-assertion (NPE/PAE) model rather than a working-company plaintiff; the named inventors on the patents are the Chaganti family (Naren, Sitapathi Rao, and Damayanti Chaganti). The defendant, Realtimeboard, Inc. d/b/a Miro, is an operating software company — the developer of the Miro online collaborative whiteboard, a SaaS platform (with desktop and mobile apps) used by distributed teams for brainstorming, agile planning, and visual collaboration. Per Miro's own SOC 3 disclosures, Realtimeboard, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco and had 200+ employees, with development concentrated in Perm, Russia (subsidiary Multivitamin LLC) and Amsterdam (Realtimeboard B.V.). Miro was represented by Kenneth L. Dorsney of Morris James LLP (Delaware counsel) with pro hac vice counsel Sarah Guske and Mark Speegle admitted in May 2023 (D.I. 8; SO ORDERED 5/18/2023); plaintiffs were represented by Timothy Devlin of the Devlin Law Firm (see Patexia docket listing, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00004).

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, "Online Repository for Personal Information" (filed Jan. 7, 2000; issued Jan. 18, 2005), and U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644, "Method and System for Online Document Collaboration" (application 12/799,945; issued Feb. 14, 2012) — both listing Pennar Software as assignee. In one line each: the '448 patent claims a server-implemented method for storing a first party's personal information and automatically disbursing selected portions to authorized requesters based on user-assigned, granular "security levels," with logging of unauthorized requesters; the '644 patent claims a method for online document collaboration in which a server stores a document, associates access restrictions with it, verifies a second user, and permits modification based on granted rights while recording who approved or disapproved changes. A notable feature — confirmed by the parallel N.D. Ill. opinion — is that both patents claim priority to January 2000 and expired in 2020, years before plaintiffs sued, making this an assertion of expired patents (damages would be limited to the pre-expiration period). The accused instrumentalities were Miro's core collaboration features: shared boards and templates, role-based sharing controls ("Can view," "Can comment," "Can edit," "No access"), "Request access" workflows, and audit logs recording unauthorized access attempts (per complaint analysis of the '448/'644 elements, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00004, D.I. 1 and D.I. 20). Procedural posture: filed Jan. 3, 2023, assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika in the District of Delaware; venue matters because D. Del. is a magnet forum for software patent suits (defendant Miro had a U.S. presence but no clear Delaware operations, and plaintiffs' counsel filed a cluster of parallel cases there). Miro moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 9, May 2023; opposition D.I. 12; reply D.I. 13). Judge Noreika then issued an unusual oral order (Oct. 2, 2023) reviewing the many "Web2.0 Technologies cases filed in this District and beyond," noting that Pennar is a plaintiff in some but not all of them, and directing plaintiffs to explain whether Pennar is a required plaintiff in all related D. Del. cases; plaintiffs filed a response letter Oct. 4, 2023 (D.I. 16), and the Court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss on Oct. 5, 2023 (D.I. 17), after which plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (Nov. 6, 2023, D.I. 20). The case terminated on Feb. 5, 2024, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees (verbatim text quoted from the PACER docket). (Note: the substance of the Oct. 5, 2023 dismissal ruling is not reflected in the sources reviewed here; I have not verified whether the court granted the motion and allowed amendment or denied it.)

Why the case is notable. This case is a data point in a broad 2023–2025 assertion campaign by Web 2.0 Technologies and Pennar Software against SaaS collaboration and project-management platforms — the same two patents (the only ones asserted in the D. Del. cluster) were filed against 37signals/Basecamp (N.D. Ill. 1:23-cv-00230), Nulab (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02589), Zendesk (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00105), Mango Technologies (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00107), Workzone, Accelo, and others, with the plaintiffs later expanding to healthcare providers in the Western District of Texas in 2025 (e.g., Ascension Providence, Advent Health Central Texas, Seton, Baylor Scott & White, Methodist — asserting continuation-family patents such as U.S. 9,465,913 / '594). The campaign is notable for (1) the breadth and age of the asserted claims — generic, late-1990s/2000-priority software methods asserted against modern SaaS features; (2) § 101 vulnerability: in the parallel N.D. Ill. case, Judge John Robert Blakey held on March 25, 2024 that both the '448 and '644 patents were directed to the abstract idea of "storing information" and controlling access to it, and were patent-ineligible under Alice, twice dismissing the complaint (case eventually dismissed with prejudice in June 2024) — 37signals was represented by Goodwin Procter and Smith Gambrell & Russell; and (3) market context: the targets are market-leading, well-capitalized real-time-collaboration vendors (Miro, Basecamp, Zendesk), consistent with an NPE strategy of extracting settlements from product companies rather than litigating to judgment. The Miro dismissal (Feb. 5, 2024, ~398 days after filing, mutual cost-bearing, no disclosed consideration) is consistent with a negotiated, pre-ruling exit — but the dismissal does not invalidate the patents, so other collaboration and digital-whiteboard vendors remain theoretically exposed. On IPR linkage, I did not identify any public record of an inter partes review or other PTAB proceeding against the '448 or '644 patents in the sources reviewed, and my search on this point was cut short — treat the absence of IPR activity as unverified rather than confirmed. By contrast, a later W.D. Tex. decision (reported in Fish & Richardson's "Texas Round-Up: December 2025") invalidated related Pennar continuation patents ('913 and '594) under § 101 at Alice step one and two, dismissing Pennar's claims with prejudice — a signal that the campaign's broader patent family has fared poorly on eligibility.

Sourcing note: Party/counsel/judge/docket facts are drawn from the PACER-sourced Patexia docket listing and the Ex Parte complaint analyses for 1:23-cv-00004; the patents' bibliographic data are from USPTO/Google Patents/Freepatentsonline; the § 101 ruling and claim text are from the N.D. Ill. opinion, Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024) (Blakey, J.), and Bloomberg Law/IP Law Daily's March 28, 2024 report. The exact terms of any settlement, and the

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me get the full docket and the key rulings.

Let me find the specific order on the motion to dismiss and the answer/counterclaims.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. Realtimeboard, Inc. d/b/a Miro, No. 1:23-cv-00004-MN (D. Del.)

Important sourcing note up front: This case was filed in the D. Del. "holding" docket and closed quickly, so the public record is thin. The docket entries below (documents, dates, parties, counsel, and the verbatim dismissal stipulation) are well sourced. The content of Judge Noreika's Oct. 5, 2023 order resolving the motion to dismiss is not something I could confirm from a full text, so I flag that as uncertain rather than characterize it.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2023-01-03 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1). Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Realtimeboard, Inc. d/b/a Miro, D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-00004, assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika (Noreika, J.). Jury demand; asserted 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"). Nature of Suit 830 (Patent). (Filing fee receipt ADEDC-4034506, per CourtListener's holding-docket entry.)
• Sole plaintiff at filing: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC. Plaintiff's counsel: Timothy Devlin (Devlin Law Firm LLC). Defendant's Delaware counsel: Kenneth L. Dorsney (Morris James LLP); Sarah Guske and Mark Speegle (Baker Botts) moved pro hac vice, granted 2023-05-18 (Doc. 8); Speegle added to electronic noticing 2023-09-15.
• The complaint mapped Miro's board-sharing/access-control features ("Can view / Can comment / Can edit / No access," "Request access," "Audit Log," permission-denied messaging) onto Claim 1 of each patent.
• I could not confirm a separately filed Answer. The Feb. 2024 stipulation recites dismissal of "the claims, counterclaims and causes of action," which suggests Miro asserted counterclaims at some point, but I found no docket entry substantiating a filed answer/counterclaim. Treat that as unverified.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 9), filed by RealtimeBoard (~Spring 2023). Briefing: Plaintiff's opposition 2023-06-01 (Doc. 12, 22 pp.); Defendant's reply 2023-06-08 (Doc. 13, 16 pp.). The precise ground (Rule 12(b)(6) § 101 eligibility vs. 12(b)(7)/standing/ownership) is not confirmed from the available record — see discussion below.
• No motion to transfer and no motion to stay pending IPR were filed (or at least none appears on the docket).
• 2023-10-02 — Oral Order (Doc. 15) (the court's own sua sponte inquiry): Judge Noreika, having "reviewed the various Web2.0 Technologies cases filed in this District and beyond," flagged that in other cases the plaintiff named Pennar Software Corporation as a co-plaintiff because it is "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents" and is "listed as the assignee on the face of these two patents." She ordered Plaintiff to file a letter by 2023-10-04 explaining the discrepancy and whether Pennar is a required plaintiff in all related D. Del. cases. This is an ownership/joinder signal and is the strongest inferential link to a Rule 12(b)(7) or standing defect.
• 2023-10-04 — Plaintiff's letter (Doc. 16) from Timothy Devlin responding to the oral orders, in which (per the parallel Trello docket) Web 2.0 stated it was amending the complaints to add Pennar Software Corporation as a plaintiff.
• 2023-10-05 — Order resolving the pending motion(s) to dismiss (Doc. 17, 8 pp.). The order did not terminate the case; an amended complaint followed a month later, which is consistent with the motion being resolved with leave to amend. I could not verify the holding. Given the parallel § 101 litigation discussed in § 7, an Alice Step One/Two ruling is plausible, but I cannot confirm it and do not assert it.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• None. The case was dismissed before any Markman hearing, Markman order, or joint claim construction statement. No scheduling order appears to have been entered. (Construction disputes the complaint teed up — e.g., whether Miro "boards" are "documents" and whether access control equates to "security levels at any granularity" — were never reached.)

4. Discovery Milestones

• None of substance. The docket shows no discovery motions, protective-order disputes, or ESI milestones. The parties were still negotiating a coordinated scheduling order across the related D. Del. cases; in the sibling Workfront docket, a stipulation to extend the deadline to submit a proposed coordinated scheduling order to 2023-11-30 was entered (Doc. 18/19, 2023-10-17). The case ended before discovery opened.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, bill of costs, or fee motion. The parties' February 2024 stipulation expressly provides that each side bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, which is why there is no § 285 / Rule 54 cost activity.

6. Final Disposition

• 2023-11-06 — Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) filed, adding Pennar Software Corporation as a co-plaintiff (curing the plaintiff-identity discrepancy the court raised on Oct. 2).
• 2024-02-05 — Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. Verbatim: the parties "have agreed to dismiss the claims, counterclaims and causes of action between them … pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) … the within action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees." Docketed as dismissed with prejudice; case terminated 2024-02-05.
• Legal effect: A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication with res judicata effect — the plaintiffs are permanently barred from re-asserting the '448 and '644 patents against Miro on the same conduct. The patents themselves remain in force and assertable against other parties.
• No appeal (none possible/noted after a voluntary with-prejudice dismissal).
• Terms: Any settlement payment, license, or covenant is not on the public record; the mutual cost-bearing language is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested judgment.

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• None identified. Searches of publicly available PTAB/IPR materials surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '448 or '644 patents in connection with this case. Miro did not seek PTAB review (at least not on the public record I could find), and no litigation stay was ever sought. If a petition exists under an unusual party caption, it is not reflected in what I could retrieve — flag as a gap.
• Note as a data point (unverified): PatSnap's patent record reports the '644 as "Inactive" with an estimated expiry of 2020-01-07 and "validity challenges: none recorded." If accurate, that expiry date would materially affect the damages window (expired patents support only pre-expiration past damages, subject to the § 286 six-year lookback). I could not verify this and would not rely on it without checking the USPTO Patent Center/Public PAIR record directly.

8. Related-Litigation Context (why the Miro case ended when it did)

Web 2.0 Technologies and Pennar Software filed a **wave of ~a dozen+ essentially identical suits

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

Let me verify the details through the docket and firm sources.

Let me dig deeper to confirm whether any additional plaintiff-side counsel appeared, and check the complaint signature blocks.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff(s) — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Realtimeboard, Inc. d/b/a Miro, No. 1:23-cv-00004-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line

For the life of this case, the plaintiff side was represented by a single Delaware firm — Devlin Law Firm LLC, with Timothy Devlin as the only attorney who appears in the public docket filings. I could not confirm any pro hac vice plaintiff counsel, any separate counsel for co-plaintiff Pennar Software Corporation, or any in-house counsel appearing in this matter. If additional appearances were docketed, they are not reflected in the public records I was able to retrieve (treat the firm/attorney count as "not fully verified" rather than exhaustive).

---

Plaintiff attorneys identified

Timothy Devlin — Lead counsel (and effectively sole counsel of record)

• Firm / office: Devlin Law Firm LLC, 1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806 (Delaware).
• Role in case: The only plaintiff-side attorney appearing in the docket. He signed the core plaintiff filings, including:
  • Doc. 12 — Answering Brief in Opposition to Miro's Motion to Dismiss (filed June 1, 2023) (Devlin, Timothy).
  • Doc. 16 — Letter to Judge Noreika responding to the Court's October 2, 2023 oral orders regarding the Pennar Software plaintiffs discrepancy (filed Oct. 4, 2023).
  • Doc. 20 — Amended Complaint (filed Nov. 6, 2023), which added Pennar Software Corporation as a co-plaintiff.
• Relevant experience: Managing partner of Devlin Law Firm; formerly co-chair of the IP Risk Management Group at Fish & Richardson. Delaware bar since 2002; USPTO Reg. No. 41,706. Recognized for a technology-focused patent enforcement practice and reported as lead counsel in 200+ patent infringement cases; active in PTAB proceedings (e.g., Motorola v. Stellar). Widely known as a Delaware local/enforcement counsel in NPE patent campaigns. (Sources: World IP Review 2025 USA Patents firm profile; Super Lawyers profile; USPTO/PTAB filings.)

Pennar Software Corporation — co-plaintiff (appeared only via the Amended Complaint)

• Counsel: No separate plaintiff counsel for Pennar is shown in this docket. Pennar was added as a co-plaintiff in the Nov. 6, 2023 Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) in response to Judge Noreika's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order pressing plaintiffs on why Pennar (the recorded assignee of the two asserted patents, U.S. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644) was omitted from most of the Delaware Web 2.0 cases. The Stipulation of Dismissal (Feb. 5, 2024) recites both plaintiffs acting through "counsel for the parties," without naming separate Pennar counsel.
• Note: In a different Web 2.0/Pennar case (Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Methodist Hospital Hill Country, W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-00292), Robert Kiddie and Alan A. Wright appeared pro hac vice for both entities — but those attorneys have no appearance in this D. Del. case.

---

Verification notes and gaps

• Source of the counsel identification: The Delaware docket entries reproduce Mr. Devlin as the plaintiff filer (Docs. 12, 16, 20), and PatSnap's litigation summary independently lists "Plaintiff counsel: Timothy Devlin; Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC" for Web 2.0 Technologies. Defense counsel is separate (Kenneth L. Dorsney of Morris James, plus PHV Mark Speegle and Sarah Guske) and is outside the scope of this request.
• Sealed / unavailable filings: This case terminated quickly by joint stipulation with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Feb. 5, 2024; each side bearing its own costs). No settlement amount or license terms are public.
• What I could not confirm: Whether a Devlin associate or any local-co-counsel was quietly listed on an early appearance form or the original complaint's signature block in a way not surfaced in the accessible docket excerpts. I did not retrieve a verbatim signature block for the original (Jan. 3, 2023) Complaint or for the Amended Complaint, and PACER image documents for this case were not directly accessible in my searches. Accordingly, I can state with confidence that Timothy Devlin / Devlin Law Firm LLC is the plaintiff firm of record, but I cannot rule out an unlisted additional plaintiff attorney.

If you need certainty on the complete appearance list (e.g., for a privilege or conflicts check), the next step is a direct PACER pull of the docket sheet and the "Notice of Appearance"/signature blocks for Docs. 1 and 20, which are not fully reproduced in the free aggregators.

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

Let me verify the docket entries and the firms for each attorney.

Let me pull the actual docket entries to confirm appearances and the motion-to-dismiss filings.

Defense Counsel of Record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. RealtimeBoard, Inc. d/b/a Miro, No. 1:23-cv-00004-MN (D. Del.)

Miro was represented by a two-firm structure typical of District of Delaware patent practice: local Delaware counsel (who filed and e-signed nearly everything) plus out-of-state patent litigation counsel admitted pro hac vice. Notably, no in-house Miro counsel appears on the public docket, and I found no sealed or withheld appearances — the docket is fully public and the case closed by stipulation.

---

Attorneys

1. Kenneth Laurence Dorsney — Delaware / local counsel of record

• Firm / office: Morris James LLP, 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE 19801. (Delaware Bar No. 003726; registered patent attorney; admitted D. Del., D.C., USPTO.)
• Role in case: The only Delaware-registered attorney appearing for RealtimeBoard. He filed the pro hac vice motion (D.I. 8, May 17, 2023) and the reply brief in support of Miro's motion to dismiss (D.I. 13, June 8, 2023). PatSnap's docket-derived party table lists him as "Counsel for Realtimeboard, Inc."
• Experience note: Chair of Morris James's IP practice and one of the most frequently retained Delaware local counsel in patent cases; Chambers USA Band 2 (Delaware IP), IAM Patent 1000–ranked, former law clerk to Judges Mary Pat Thynge and Kent A. Jordan, and editor-in-chief/co-author of Pre-ANDA Litigation.

2. Sarah J. Guske — lead trial / merits counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm / office at the time: Baker Botts L.L.P., San Francisco (101 California Street / later 1001 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto). She has since moved to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco — that move postdates this case's dismissal, so Baker Botts is the correct firm of record here.
• Role in case: Out-of-state patent counsel; admitted PHV by Judge Noreika's order of May 18, 2023 granting D.I. 8 (motion sought PHV for "Attorney Sarah Guske and Attorney Mark Speegle"). Baker Botts was the substantive briefing team behind Miro's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (D.I. 9).
• Experience note: Veteran software/electronics patent trial lawyer — Cisco/Focal IP PTAB proceedings (IPR2016-01254, where she was backup counsel to Wayne Stacy), Fractus v. T-Mobile, Twilio v. TeleSign, Linquet v. Tile, and notably Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) on document-management/collaboration technology — directly on point for the Miro accused features. Former co-chair of Baker Botts's PTAB Trials Group; IAM Patent 1000–ranked (California litigation).

3. Mark Speegle — merits counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm / office: Baker Botts L.L.P., 401 South 1st Street, Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78704 (Texas SBN 24117198).
• Role in case: PHV motion (D.I. 8) named him alongside Guske; the CM/ECF notice "[P]ro hac vice Attorney Mark Speegle for RealtimeBoard, Inc. added for electronic noticing" was entered September 15, 2023 (Patexia docket record). Listed as defendant counsel in the docket-derived party tables.
• Experience note: Registered patent attorney focused on patent litigation and PTAB work; e.g., lead examination counsel for Semiconductor Components Industries (onsemi) in Cirrus Logic v. Greenthread (IPR2024-00018) and plaintiff-side counsel in Textron Innovations v. SZ DJI Technology (E.D. Tex.).

---

Procedural posture confirming the appearances

• Complaint filed Jan. 3, 2023; RealtimeBoard moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 9, briefed at D.I. 12–13) and the court ruled on pending motions to dismiss by order of Oct. 5, 2023 (D.I. 17), followed by an amended complaint Nov. 6, 2023 (D.I. 20) that added Pennar Software Corp. as co-plaintiff.
• The court's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order (D.I. 15) — later addressed in plaintiff's counsel Timothy Devlin's letter (D.I. 16) — concerned the Pennar-plaintiff discrepancy across the related Web 2.0 cases; that issue involved plaintiff-side, not defense, counsel.
• Case dismissed with prejudice by joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation on Feb. 5, 2024, each side bearing its own costs.

Sourcing caveats

• The names and firm affiliations are corroborated by the Patexia docket document list (D.I. 8, D.I. 13, and the Sept. 15, 2023 PHV notice), the PatSnap litigation-intelligence party/counsel table derived from PACER, and firm/bar biographical sources. I did not independently view the signed PDF signatures on D.I. 9 or the answer/counterclaims, so I cannot state who physically signed each paper beyond Dorsney's CM/ECF signature on D.I. 8 and D.I. 13 — treat Guske's and Speegle's precise role allocation (lead vs. supporting) as inferred from the PHV motion and the Baker Botts team composition, not from a formal lead-counsel designation (D. Del. does not typically enter one).
• No in-house Miro/RealtimeBoard attorney appears on the public docket, and no filings in this case were sealed.