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

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good foundational data. Let me dig into the key rulings, IPR activity, and the broader campaign.

Case Overview — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00105-MN (D. Del.)

The parties. The plaintiffs are two related entities. Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC is the plaintiff of record and the campaign vehicle; Pennar Software Corporation is named on the face of both asserted patents as the assignee and is described in the plaintiffs' own pleadings in the parallel suits as "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents" (D.I. 25, Oral Order, Oct. 2, 2023). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies Web 2.0 Technologies as a non-practicing entity, with asserter categories including "Acquired patents" and "Individual-inventor-started" (npe.law.stanford.edu). Seyfarth Shaw's April 2023 "NPE Showcase" profiled the entity as a high-volume NPE/"patent troll" that asserts "two patents against well-known companies for technology that has been around since the turn of the millennium," whose cases "last only a few months, suggesting a cost-of-defense settlement that is the hallmark of nuisance-based patent troll litigation," and noted the entity is apparently inventor-controlled with an undisclosed litigation-funding source (Lexology/JD Supra reprint). Neither plaintiff appears to make or sell a product. The defendant, Zendesk, Inc., is a well-known SaaS provider of customer-service, support-ticketing, and CRM collaboration software — the accused "Zendesk Platform" functionality centers on agent/customer chat, stored help-desk tickets, and the role- and permission-based access controls that govern which agents can see which tickets (Ex Parte complaint analysis of D.I. 1/18, alleging Compl. ¶¶22–23, 35, 37). Zendesk is represented by local counsel Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Bindu A. Palapura, David E. Moore) and, pro hac vice, Goodwin Procter LLP (Indra N. Chatterjee, Amadou K. Diaw, Amanda E. Stephenson, Jacqueline G. Bova, Arsh Raince); plaintiffs are represented by Timothy Devlin of the Devlin Law Firm LLC.

Asserted patents and accused technology. Two patents were asserted, both from a common January 2000 filing family and both expired in 2020 — years before the January 27, 2023 complaint was filed:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 B1, "Online Repository for Personal Information" (app. 09/478,796; filed/priority Jan. 2000) — a server-implemented method for storing a person's information in discrete "information objects," letting the first party assign security levels to each object at "any granularity," and disbursing (or rejecting disclosure of) those objects to a requesting second party based on authorization. The infringement theory mapped the claims onto Zendesk's admin-configured agent "roles" and ticket-level access permissions.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 B2, "Method and System for Online Document Collaboration" (granted Feb. 14, 2012; est. expiry Jan. 7, 2020) — a server method for storing user-created documents, associating access restrictions, verifying a second user's identity before allowing modification, and recording who approved or disapproved edits. The theory mapped this onto Zendesk's stored "documents, such as help tickets" and permission-gated editing/review workflows.

The plaintiffs proceeded on a theory of direct and joint infringement (with Zendesk's customers) of at least claim 1 of each patent ([D.I. 18, First Amended Complaint, Aug. 10, 2023]).

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. The complaint was filed Jan. 27, 2023 in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika (who has since been associated with the District's chief judgeship in litigation databases), alongside a wave of related D. Del. suits (Nos. 1:23-cv-00104, -00107, -00108). Delaware was a natural forum: it is Zendesk's likely state of incorporation and remained the leading patent plaintiffs' venue heading into 2023. Zendesk's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (D.I. 12, July 12, 2023) was mooted when plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint adding Pennar (D.I. 18–19, Aug. 10, 2023); Zendesk renewed the motion (D.I. 20–21), plaintiffs opposed (D.I. 22), and Zendesk replied (D.I. 24). Notably, on Oct. 2, 2023, Judge Noreika issued a sua sponte oral order, having reviewed the parallel Web 2.0 cases in Delaware and elsewhere, demanding that plaintiff explain why Pennar — the recorded 100% owner — was not joined in the other D. Del. suits, and "whether Pennar Software Corporation is a required plaintiff in all of the related cases pending before this Court" (D.I. 25). Plaintiffs responded by letter on Oct. 4 (D.I. 26); the Court entered an 8-page order resolving the pending dismissal motions on Oct. 5, 2023 (D.I. 27). The case was settled and closed: a stipulation of dismissal was entered Dec. 12, 2023 (D.I. 33–34), and the docket reflects dismissal with prejudice (Patsnap case record; CourtListener docket).

The case is notable on several axes. First, it is a textbook NPE nuisance-settlement pattern: two long-expired, turn-of-the-millennium patents asserted in a rapid-fire campaign against widely used SaaS collaboration and project-management platforms (parallel D. Del. and other suits against Trello, Miro/Realtimeboard, ProofHub, LiquidPlanner, Accelo, TaskWorld, Mango, Workfront, 37signals/Basecamp, and Nulab), nearly all resolved by quick with-prejudice dismissals consistent with cost-of-defense settlements. Second, the patents' §101 vulnerability is documented: in the parallel N.D. Ill. case, Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 23-cv-0230, Judge Robert Blakey granted the defendant's Alice motion to dismiss on March 25, 2024, holding both patents directed to abstract ideas with no inventive concept (opinion via VitalLaw; CourtListener). Third, Judge Noreika's Pennar/joinder inquiry is an example of judicial scrutiny of real-party-in-interest and standing in NPE suits. Finally, the campaign illustrates market context that the Web 2.0 entity later pivoted — by February 2025 it was filing the same two patents against hospital systems in W.D. Tex. (e.g., Baylor Scott & White, Advent Health, Ascension Providence) (CourtListener).

Sourcing caveats: No PTAB inter partes review of either patent was identified in my searches (Patsnap records "validity challenges: none recorded" for the '644 patent), so any IPR linkage here is absent rather than established. I could not verify from the public docket text the substantive outcome of Judge Noreika's Oct. 5, 2023 order (D.I. 27) — the docket describes it only as an order ruling on the pending motions to dismiss — and the settlement terms in the Zendesk stipulation are confidential; the parties' public filings state only that they settled. Zendesk's current corporate ownership status (it was reported in 2022 to be taken private by Hellman & Friedman and Permira) was not verified within this research and should not be treated as authoritative here.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the docket details, the motion-to-dismiss briefing, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the full docket detail and check for PTAB proceedings.

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

Let me get more detail on the plaintiff's counsel and the amended complaint.

Let me look at the docket and the amended complaint filings directly.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00105-MN (D. Del.)

Lead counsel

Timothy Devlin — Lead counsel (and sole plaintiff-side counsel appearing on the docket)

• Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Office: 1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806 (also listed at 1306 N. Broom St., Suite 1, Wilmington, DE 19806)
• Bar/registration: Delaware (admitted 2002); New York (1997); registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 41706). Because he is a Delaware-barred attorney, no pro hac vice motion was required for him to appear — unlike Zendesk's out-of-state counsel.
• Role in case: Mr. Devlin signed the original Complaint (D.I. 1, filed Jan. 27, 2023), the Disclosure Statement (D.I. 4), the Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (D.I. 17, Aug. 9, 2023), and the First Amended Complaint filed Aug. 10, 2023 (D.I. 18), which added Pennar Software Corporation as a co-plaintiff. He also signed the Oct. 4, 2023 letter response to Judge Noreika's oral order regarding the Pennar Software plaintiff discrepancy. Docket aggregator Patsnap lists "Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC" as the recorded counsel for plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies in this case.
• Experience note: A career patent litigator and registered patent attorney who has run the entire Web 2.0 Technologies campaign (asserting U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644) across D. Del. and other districts, and who appears regularly as lead counsel in PTAB proceedings (e.g., Michigan Motor Technologies LLC IPRs, where he is listed as lead counsel, Reg. No. 41706). Selected to Super Lawyers for IP litigation (2012, 2019–2026).

Other plaintiff-side counsel / parties

• Pennar Software Corporation (co-plaintiff): Named on the First Amended Complaint as the "owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents." It is a party, not a law firm; no separate or in-house counsel for Pennar appears on the docket for this case. The distinction matters because Judge Noreika's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order focused on why Pennar appeared as a plaintiff only in the Zendesk case among the related D. Del. suits.
• No other plaintiff's counsel appears of record. The docket's only other attorney entries are defense-side: Zendesk's pro hac vice counsel Amadou K. Diaw, Indra Neel Chatterjee, and Amanda E. Stephenson (added June 27, 2023), and Jacqueline Genovese Bova and Arsh Raince (added July 11, 2023), with Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Bindu Ann George Palapura, David Ellis Moore, Andrew L. Brown) as Delaware/local counsel.

Caveats

• The case was terminated Dec. 12, 2023 via a Stipulation of Dismissal, so no further appearances were made.
• The public docket (as retrieved via Justia, CourtListener/RECAP, Patexia, and Patsnap) reflects a single named plaintiff's counsel, Timothy Devlin. I could not confirm any additional Devlin Law Firm attorneys (e.g., Robyn T. Williams, who appears as backup counsel in some other Devlin matters) formally appearing in this specific docket — so I am not listing them as counsel of record here.
• No filing in this case appears to have been sealed in a way that would conceal counsel identity; the plaintiff's representation is a matter of public record via the signed filings cited above.

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

Let me pull the docket details and pro hac vice filings.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Zendesk, Inc.

Bottom line up front / sourcing caveat: The docket-derived litigation data I could reach attributes Zendesk's representation to Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE) as Delaware counsel, with several out‑of‑state attorneys who would have been admitted pro hac vice. I could only partially corroborate individual names before hitting my research limit, so I flag confirmations and open questions explicitly below rather than guessing. I did not find any indication of sealed appearances or an in‑house attorney of record on this docket.

Confirmed from docket-derived records

The Zendesk defendant-side entry in the Patsnap Litigation Data record for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00105 (D. Del.), lists the following names as recorded counsel, with firm Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Hercules Plaza, 1313 N. Market St., 6th Fl., Wilmington, DE 19801):

Listed but not corroborated (possible out-of-state/PHV counsel)

Corroborating docket signals

• The PACER/RECAP docket shows "Appear Pro Hac Vice" entries on June 13, 2023, an "Add Attorneys – PHV only" entry on June 27, 2023, and a second pro hac vice event on June 21, 2023 — consistent with out-of-state counsel being admitted for Zendesk in mid-2023 (D.I. 9–11 range). I could not retrieve the underlying motions to read the named movants/affiants; that is the single best confirmatory document to pull from PACER.
• Zendesk's dismissal papers (D.I. 33, Stipulation of Dismissal, signed/ordered Dec. 12, 2023, D.I. 34 terminating the case) refer generally to "their respective undersigned counsel" without listing names — so the stipulation does not itself identify counsel.
• For context, plaintiffs' counsel was Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington), consistent across the related Web 2.0 Technologies filings.

What to verify against PACER to close gaps

1. D.I. 9, 10, 11 (pro hac vice motions, June 2023) and the accompanying orders — these will name the out-of-state attorneys and their firms.
2. The attorney appearance/entry-of-appearance docket entries (mid-2023) — these carry the "LEAD ATTORNEY / ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" designations.
3. The D.I. 20 Motion to Dismiss / D.I. 24 Reply signature blocks (Zendesk's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint) — these will show who signed for Zendesk.

If you can pull those three items, I can convert the two "unverified" rows above into confirmed lead/PHV counsel and drop any names that turn out to belong to related Web 2.0 cases (the Noreika docket's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order in D.I. 25 notes this family of cases was coordinated, which raises the risk of cross-case name bleed in third-party litigation databases).