Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Workzone (defendant associated with workzone.com)

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing. Let me start with the docket and party background.

Let me dig into the dismissal, the motion to dismiss, and the broader campaign.

Now let me verify the docket history, the patent details, PTAB activity, and the broader campaign.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. The plaintiffs are Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Pennar Software Corporation — the latter named as the record assignee on the face of both asserted patents and described in the campaign's own pleadings as "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents." The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies Pennar as an "individual-inventor-started" (Category 5) entity, and third-party litigation analytics (PatSnap) characterize Web 2.0 Technologies as a "software patent licensing entity"; the two appear to function as patent-holding/assertion vehicles rather than product companies (no operating website or product is alleged in the docket). Their counsel is Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Del.), a firm that has run numerous Delaware patent campaigns. The defendant is Workzone, LLC, the Delaware-organized operator of the cloud project-management application at workzone.com; its Rule 7.1 disclosure lists "No Parents or Affiliates" (D.I. 11), confirming it is an independent operating SaaS company rather than a subsidiary of a larger platform. Workzone was represented by Andrew Koopman and Christopher Blaszkowski of Ratner Prestia PC, with Benjamin E. Leace admitted pro hac vice (D.I. 7, 9, 14).

The accused technology and the patents. The complaint (and the amended complaint at [D.I.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search across multiple sources.

I found this is part of a broader patent assertion campaign. Let me dig deeper into the Workzone-specific docket and related proceedings.

Let me find the full Workzone docket and the related Noreika order.

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Workzone, LLC — Case No. 1:23-cv-00345 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived member of a coordinated multi-defendant patent-assertion campaign. Filed 2023-03-27 and terminated by a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on 2023-12-14 after only ~262 days — before claim construction, before any discovery of substance, and with no trial, judgment, or appeal. The case never produced a merits ruling; the key legal activity was a defendant motion to dismiss, a joint stay request, and a court-driven plaintiff-realignment issue. A parallel sister case against 37signals/Basecamp in N.D. Ill. did produce a substantive § 101 ruling that is the best available window into how these patents fare on the merits.

A significant caveat up front: I could not retrieve a full verbatim PACER docket sheet for 1:23-cv-00345. The chronology below is reconstructed from the available docket extracts (RPX Insight, UniCourt, PatSnap, ExParte AI Lab) and the parallel Web 2.0 cases. Where a fact is inferred rather than directly sourced, I say so.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Parties / ownership issue. The complaint asserted the two patents against Workzone's online project-management product (workzone.com), alleging "direct and joint" infringement of the '448 (personal-information repository) and '644 (online document collaboration) patents. The case caption ultimately lists Pennar Software Corp. as a co-plaintiff. Notably, Pennar is the record assignee on the face of both patents, yet in several sister cases only Web 2.0 was named as plaintiff — a discrepancy the court itself flagged (see §2).

Key actors (as recorded):

• Plaintiffs' counsel: Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC (Delaware). The campaign's broader roster across cases included Neil A. Benchell, Jason M. Wejnert, and Christopher May.
• Defendant's counsel: Andrew J. Koopman, Benjamin E. Leace, Christopher H. Blaszkowski — Ratner Prestia PC.
• Judge: Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika (D. Del.).

No counterclaims confirmed. The dismissal language ("claims, counterclaims and causes of action") suggests counterclaims may have existed, but I found no sourced confirmation of the specific counterclaims Workzone pleaded (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement). Treat as unconfirmed.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

a) Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 12–13), filed 2023-05-17. Workzone filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (D.I. 12) with an opening brief (D.I. 13); response was due 2023-05-31. The docket extract describes the motion only as one "for Failure to State a Claim." Based on the campaign pattern, a § 101 Alice challenge is the most likely ground — the identical patents were dismissed on § 101 grounds in the 37signals case (see §7) — but the Workzone docket extract does not state the ground, so I flag this as a strong inference, not a confirmed fact.

b) Joint motion to stay (D.I. 15), filed 2023-05-23 by Workzone with plaintiff participation. The stated basis is not captured in the extract; a stay is consistent with the parties pursuing settlement (the termination pattern across the campaign) or awaiting resolution of the dismissal motion. I could not confirm whether the court ruled on this motion or what its terms were.

c) Pro hac vice admission (D.I. 14), granted 2023-05-23 for defense counsel Benjamin E. Leace.

d) The court's sua sponte plaintiff-inquiry (≈2023-10-02). In the companion D. Del. case Web 2.0 Technologies v. Trello, Judge Noreika issued an Oral Order (D.I. 16, entered 2023-10-02) noting that Web 2.0's complaints in multiple cases alleged Pennar Software Corp. was "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents," that Pennar was the named assignee on the patents, yet Pennar "is not a plaintiff in the cases pending in this District except one (against Zendesk)." She ordered plaintiff to file a letter by 2023-10-04 explaining the discrepancy and whether Pennar is a required plaintiff in all related cases. Plaintiff's counsel (Devlin) responded by letter ("Response to Court's Oral Orders," D.I. 17 in Trello). This same inquiry was directed across the Web 2.0 cases in the District, including Workzone, and the practical consequence was an amended complaint adding Pennar as a co-plaintiff.

• No motion to transfer was filed (venue was undisputed in D. Del.); no summary judgment motion was reached.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None. The case resolved before the Rule 16 scheduling order's claim-construction phase. No Markman hearing, no construction order, and no exchange of proposed terms occurred. There is no claim-construction outcome to report.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. Given the ~8-month life of the case, the early Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the joint stay motion, the case almost certainly never reached substantive discovery (no infringement contentions, no expert reports, no depositions of note). The complaint itself twice reserved rights "as discovery progresses," but discovery did not meaningfully progress.

---

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, and consequently no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions. Fees were resolved by the dismissal stipulation (each side bearing its own).

---

6. Amended pleading and final disposition

The final disposition is a negotiated, with-prejudice dismissal — functionally a settlement or license. As PatSnap's analysis of the parallel cases notes, a with-pre

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case. Let me start with searches on the docket and case details.

Let me dig into the specifics of the docket and plaintiff's counsel.

Let me look for the full docket and any additional plaintiff-side appearances or amended complaint.

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

Bottom line: The plaintiff-side representation in this case was a single-attorney shop. The docket reflects one attorney of record for the plaintiffs: Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware). No pro hac vice motion, no co-counsel appearance, and no in-house counsel appear on the plaintiff side of this docket. Note also the case is closed — the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice on/about Dec. 14, 2023 — so this is a historical counsel-of-record answer, not a live appearance.

Attorney of record

Sources: Firm bio — https://devlinlawfirm.com/timothy-devlin/ ; World IP Review firm profile — https://www.worldipreview.com/about-rankings/usa-patents-rankings-2025/devlin-law-firm ; docket counsel listing — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu41fcbb40b2b0-[1446792](/patent/1446792) ; PatSnap case record (plaintiff counsel "Timothy Devlin / Devlin Law Firm LLC") — https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/web-2-0-technologies-v-workzone-patent-infringement-dismissed-patsnap/

What the docket confirms (and what it doesn't)

• D.I. 1 (complaint, filed 3/27/2023, jury demand) and D.I. 6 (summons returned executed) were filed by Timothy Devlin for Web 2.0 Technologies; the case was assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika (1:23-cv-00345-MN).
• The only pro hac vice motion in the entire docket was filed by the defendant — Workzone, for Benjamin E. Leace (D.I. 9/14, granted 4/17/2023 and 5/23/2023), alongside local Delaware counsel Andrew John Koopman and Christopher H. Blaszkowski of Ratner Prestia. No corresponding plaintiff-side PHV motion appears.
• By Nov. 6, 2023 amended complaint (D.I. 25), Pennar Software Corp. was added as a co-plaintiff (per the Oct. 2, 2023 Oral Order and the Oct. 4, 2023 letter from Devlin). That amended pleading was still filed by Devlin.
• Termination text: a Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) stipulation dismissing all claims with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs — reported closed Dec. 14, 2023.
• No in-house counsel for either plaintiff entity appears anywhere on the docket.

Caveats / confidence level

• Verified well: Devlin as the sole plaintiff-side attorney of record, his firm/address, and the fact that no other plaintiff attorney appeared. This is consistent across the docket listings (UniCourt) and the litigation-data record (PatSnap).
• Not independently verified: I was unable to pull the CM/ECF signature blocks of D.I. 1 and D.I. 25 directly (PACER paywalled; the CourtListener/RECAP docket page for this specific case did not return in search). It is therefore possible that a non-appearing "of counsel" attorney — e.g., an out-of-state lawyer who assisted without entering an appearance — is listed on a complaint signature block but not reflected in the docket's attorney list. In the parallel Web 2.0 v. Nulab case (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02589), for instance, the complaint was filed by a Christopher May (New York), which suggests the plaintiffs used outside local counsel in some non-Delaware fora. I found no evidence of any such additional attorney in the Workzone case, and I am not naming anyone I cannot source.
• If you need the signature blocks confirmed, the authoritative next step is pulling D.I. 1 and D.I. 25 from PACER for 1:23-cv-00345-MN (or the RECAP copy), which would definitively show every name on the signature block even if not formally entered.

If you want one name: Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE — lead and Delaware counsel of record for both plaintiffs; no other plaintiff counsel of record appears in 1:23-cv-00345.

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

I have the core names. Let me verify the firm affiliations, roles, and experience for each attorney.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Workzone, LLC

Case: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Workzone, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00345-MN (D. Del.) — Judge Maryellen Noreika

Important threshold note on case status: Although the prompt metadata lists the case as "filed; status not confirmed," third‑party docket aggregators indicate this case closed on December 14, 2023, dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) stipulation (Patsnap Litigation Data; the stipulation text reads: "the within action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs…"). I could not directly authenticate this against PACER (PACER itself is paywalled and I was unable to retrieve the live docket sheet), so treat the closure date as well‑sourced but not PACER‑verified. The counsel identifications below, however, come from docket‑derived aggregator records (UniCourt's PACER mirror and Patsnap, both of which reproduce the docket entries verbatim) and are consistent across sources.

Counsel appearing for Workzone, LLC

All three defendant‑side attorneys are from RatnerPrestia (Ratner Prestia PC), an IP‑only boutique headquartered at 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 350, King of Prussia, PA, with additional Pennsylvania offices in Berwyn/Valley Forge and a Wilmington, Delaware office.

What the docket shows (document‑by‑document)

From the UniCourt docket mirror of the D. Del. filings:

• D.I. 7 — Notice of Appearance by Andrew John Koopman on behalf of Workzone, LLC.
• D.I. 9 / 14 — Motion for pro hac vice appearance of Benjamin E. Leace (order granting entered Apr. 17, 2023; PHV attorney Leace added for electronic noticing).
• D.I. 10 — Stipulation to extend time to respond to the Complaint.
• D.I. 11 — Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (no parents/affiliates) — filed by Workzone, LLC.
• D.I. 12 / 13 — Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and opening brief (filed May 17, 2023).
• D.I. 15 — Joint Motion to Stay (filed May 23, 2023).
• D.I. 25 — the operative/amended infringement contentions (First Amended Complaint) filed Nov. 6, 2023, reflecting the addition of Pennar Software Corp. as a plaintiff.

Gaps and caveats

• PACER was not directly accessible to me, so I cannot confirm whether any additional appearances (e.g., an earlier Notice of Appearance, or a different signature block) exist that the aggregators did not capture.
• No in‑house counsel for Workzone appears anywhere in the public docket records I retrieved. Workzone, LLC (workzone.com) is a small/private SaaS company; no in‑house attorney of record is identified.
• No other law firms (e.g., a separate Delaware "local counsel" firm outside RatnerPrestia) are identified — RatnerPrestia itself supplies Delaware‑barred coverage through its Wilmington office, chiefly Koopman.
• Formal role designations ("lead counsel," "of counsel") are not formally stated in D. Del. filings; my role assignments are inferences from who filed which papers and the PHV structure (Delaware‑barred attorney files; out‑of‑state attorney admitted PHV), and should be treated as such rather than as docket‑stated titles.
• Because the case settled/dismissed on the pleadings stage, there is no claim construction order, trial record, or judgment to further illuminate counsel's roles.

Bottom line: The defendant's counsel of record were Benjamin E. Leace (RatnerPrestia, Berwyn/Valley Forge, PA — pro hac vice, lead litigation counsel), Andrew John Koopman (RatnerPrestia, Wilmington, DE/Berwyn, PA — filed the substantive motions), and Christopher H. Blaszkowski (RatnerPrestia, Valley Forge/Berwyn, PA — co‑counsel). All three are USPTO‑registered patent attorneys with PTAB experience working together.