Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Accelo, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good material. Let me verify the settlement outcome, Accelo's business, the 37signals ruling, and any IPR activity.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Accelo, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00001-MN (D. Del.), was the first patent case filed in Delaware in 2023 — the complaint was docketed January 1, 2023, and is reflected on the docket as civil action 23-1. The plaintiff side is a two-entity structure that matters analytically: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing patent-holding entity (Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a Non-Practicing Entity asserting "acquired patents"), and Pennar Software Corporation, the original assignee and an operating software company associated with the Chaganti family (inventors Damayanti, Naren, and Sitapathi Rao Chaganti). Pennar was not named in the original January 2023 complaint; it was added as a co-plaintiff after Judge Noreika issued oral orders on October 2, 2023 in the related cases requiring plaintiff's counsel to explain the "discrepancy in plaintiffs among the various cases and whether Pennar Software Corporation is a required plaintiff in all of the related cases" — a docket letter in the companion Trello case confirms amended complaints were contemplated to add Pennar. Plaintiff's counsel throughout is Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC, a Delaware firm with a high-volume patent-plaintiff practice. Defendant Accelo, Inc. is a software-as-a-service vendor; the complaint alleges (on information and belief) that Accelo is a Delaware corporation. Accelo is commonly described commercially as a professional services automation / client-work-management platform (CRM, projects, retainers, tickets, time tracking, invoicing), but I could not verify its corporate history or headquarters in the sources retrieved here, so that description should be treated as unconfirmed. Defendant's counsel of record is Cameron Clark (docket entries 18, 26); the firm is not confirmed in the sources retrieved.

The accused technology. The complaint targets the Accelo cloud platform itself rather than a discrete product SKU, charting Accelo's own public help documentation and API docs (last visited November 18, 2022) against the asserted claims. For the '448 patent, Web 2.0 points to: user/staff account creation with a default "Administrator" user; "Staff Object" data fields (name, email, billable rate); granular permission and "Financial Visibility" settings; the Reports module (e.g., Time & Expense Reports) that retrieves records by user identifier; TLS-encrypted transmission; and rejection of unauthorized requests via HTTP 403 / "invalid_permission" error codes. For the '644 patent, it points to multi-user accounts and collaborative workspaces — Projects, Tasks, Tickets, and a "Signoffs" approval feature that records which user approved or last modified a document. Notably, the complaint pleads actual knowledge and notice as of "on or about June 15, 2021," meaning this is pled as a notice-letter case rather than a willfulness-via-filing case.

The patents. Two patents are asserted: (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 B1, "Online Repository for Personal Information" — a method/system for gathering personal information on a server and releasing portions of it only to authorized requesters, with change notifications and a "junk requester" tag for chronic unauthorized requesters; and (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644, "Method and System for Online Document Collaboration" — establishing user accounts, storing a document with access restrictions, verifying a second user, permitting modification per granted rights, and recording the identities of users who approve or disapprove revisions. Both share a January 7, 2000 priority date (the '448 application is No. 09/478,796; the '644 is a later filing in the same family). One factual discrepancy worth flagging: the complaint states the '448 issued "March 13, 2007," but USPTO/Google Patents and PatSnap records show January 18, 2005 — the complaint date appears to be an error. More significantly, third-party patent records (PatSnap) list both patents' legal status as inactive, with an estimated expiry of January 7, 2020 (20 years from the 2000 priority filing, absent term adjustment). If accurate, the asserted claims had expired roughly three years before this suit was filed, which would sharply limit — and potentially eliminate — the recoverable damages window and would sit awkwardly against the alleged June 15, 2021 notice date. I flag this as an estimate from a secondary database, not a verified term calculation including any patent term adjustment or terminal disclaimer.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika (Courtroom 4A) in the District of Delaware — the single most-frequented patent venue in the country, prized by plaintiffs for its speed, its experienced bench, and its form scheduling orders. The parties' proposed schedule, signed December 12, 2023 (D.I. 25), set fact discovery to December 19, 2024; claim construction briefing running from February 13, 2025 through a joint brief on April 17, 2025; a Markman hearing on May 15, 2025; dispositive motions due November 13, 2025; pretrial conference April 13, 2026; and a five-day jury trial set for April 20, 2026. Before that, Judge Noreika issued an October 5, 2023 order ruling on pending motions to dismiss (D.I. 17) — the docket does not confirm in the sources retrieved which motion(s) that resolved or how. Those dates were overtaken by events: on January 4, 2024, plaintiffs filed a "Notice of Settlement in Principle and Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Deadlines" (D.I. 29), and the case is now listed as closed in third-party case databases. I was unable to retrieve the actual dismissal or stipulation of dismissal, so whether the Accelo resolution was with or without prejudice, and whether it included a license payment, is not confirmed here. Venue matters here not just for speed but because Accelo is alleged to be a Delaware corporation, which neutralizes the venue challenge that several co-defendants in this campaign faced.

Why the case is notable. Three things. First, it is the lead case in a coordinated 2023 assertion campaign by Web 2.0 Technologies and Pennar Software against cloud collaboration and SaaS vendors — related D. Del. actions include Hive Technology (23-cv-2), TaskWorld (23-cv-42), Zendesk (23-cv-105), Google (23-cv-340), Trello (23-cv-344), among others, with several resolved by dismissal with prejudice (Trello, Zendesk, TaskWorld, Hive) and Google by voluntary dismissal. The uniformity of the pleadings and the fact that these were filed in a tight January–March 2023 window indicate a structured enforcement program rather than opportunistic one-off suits. Second, the campaign drew a Unified Patents Patroll prior-art bounty on U.S. 6,845,448 (running January 20 – March 31, 2023, with a $2,000 prize), and the contest announcement itself named Trello, Hive, and Formagrid as targets — evidence that defensive aggregators were tracking these patents early. Third, and most consequential for merits exposure, the patents took a § 101 hit in a parallel case: in Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Blakey held on March 25, 2024 that both asserted patents are directed to the abstract idea of "storing information and controlling access to it" and recite no inventive concept, dismissing the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend and faulting plaintiffs for pleading no allegations of inventiveness. That is the only substantive merits ruling I located on these patents, and it is a defense-side roadmap: defendants in Delaware can be expected to press the same Alice step-two arguments. Finally, no IPR or other PTAB challenge to either patent appears in the sources retrieved, despite the Patroll bounty; if no IPR was filed, that is itself notable given the § 101 outcome in Illinois. Market context: the patents sit at the edge of the modern cloud-collaboration and personal-data-repository space, but their 2000 priority date, apparent 2020 expiry, and the § 101 ruling collectively suggest a short-fuse monetization effort aimed at quick settlements rather than litigation to judgment.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Let me pull the specific docket and check for PTAB proceedings.

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

Let me pull the docket sheet and attorney appearance entries.

Let me get the full docket sheet and any additional appearance entries.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Accelo, Inc., 1:23-cv-00001-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line: Based on the docket entries and documents I could retrieve, the only plaintiff-side attorney of record I can verify in this case is Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware). He filed the complaint, signed every plaintiff-side filing on the docket I retrieved, and served as both lead and Delaware local counsel. I found no separate Notice of Appearance, pro hac vice motion, or co-counsel entry for any other plaintiff-side attorney in this specific case in the sources available to me — so I cannot name other counsel, and I will not invent any.

Verified Plaintiff Counsel

Docket support for Devlin as filer of record (all captioned "(Devlin, Timothy)" in the CM/ECF entry):

• D.I. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement, filed Jan. 1, 2023 (originally docketed on the miscellaneous docket 1:99-mc-02023, receipt ADEDC-4034501; later "SEE CIVIL ACTION 23-1"). (Source: CourtListener docket entries for the D. Del. miscellaneous docket.)
• D.I. 24 — Letter to the Hon. Maryellen Noreika from Timothy Devlin regarding the proposed scheduling order (Dec. 7, 2023).
• D.I. 28 — Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Pennar Software Corporation and Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (Dec. 20, 2023).
• D.I. 29 — Notice of Settlement in Principle and stipulation to stay deadlines, filed by Pennar Software Corporation and Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (Jan. 4, 2024). (Source: Patexia litigation documents list for this case; the docket shows the case thereafter closed — the Ex Parte case page lists status "Closed.")

Important nuances

1. The plaintiff-side name on later filings is two entities, not one. On Oct. 2, 2023, Judge Noreika issued an Oral Order requiring plaintiff to explain why Pennar Software Corporation (the named assignee on the face of both patents) was omitted as a plaintiff in most of the related cases. Devlin's Oct. 4, 2023 response letter (D.I. 17 in the companion Trello case) stated Web 2.0 Technologies would amend "in the coming weeks to add Pennar Software Corporation as a plaintiff." By the time of the Dec. 20, 2023 and Jan. 4, 2024 filings in Accelo, both Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Pennar Software Corporation appear as plaintiffs — still signed by Devlin. (Source: CourtListener, Letter, D.I. 17 in Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Trello, Inc., 1:23-cv-00344-MN.)

2. Devlin appears to serve as both lead and local counsel. Because his firm is Wilmington-based and he is Delaware-barred, no separate Delaware "local counsel" entry was needed. I did not locate any pro hac vice application or Notice of Appearance for an out-of-state plaintiff attorney in this case.

3. Gaps / sourcing caveats.

   • I could not access a live PACER docket sheet for 1:23-cv-00001 directly; my reconstruction relies on the CourtListener/RECAP entries, the Patexia document list, and the Ex Parte case page. These could be incomplete.
   • If any additional plaintiff-side attorneys (e.g., other Devlin Law Firm associates or outside co-counsel) entered appearances in entries I did not retrieve, they would not be reflected here. No such attorneys are named in the sources I reviewed.
   • Defendant Accelo's counsel (e.g., an attorney signing as "Cameron Clark," per D.I. 26) is outside the scope of this request and I have not verified that side.

Case context (for the file)

The case is one of roughly 15+ nearly identical suits Devlin filed in D. Del. in early 2023 asserting the same two patents — U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,845,448 ("Online Repository for Personal Information") and 8,117,644 ("Method and System for Online Document Collaboration") — against project-management/collaboration SaaS providers, including Accelo (23-1), Hive (23-2), LiquidPlanner (23-3), RealtimeBoard/Miro (23-4), TaskWorld (23-42), Createch/GoodDay (23-45), Workfront (23-104), Zendesk (23-105), Mango (23-107), Google (23-340), Moxtra (23-342), ProofHub (23-343), Trello (23-344), and Workzone (23-345). Judge Noreika entered a scheduling order in this case on Dec. 12, 2023 (D.I. 25) setting a Markman hearing for May 15, 2025 and a 5-day jury trial for Apr. 20, 2026, but the Jan. 4, 2024 Notice of Settlement in Principle (D.I. 29) appears to have ended the case before those milestones.

If you need certainty on whether any additional counsel appeared, the authoritative step is a direct PACER pull of the full docket sheet for 1:23-cv-00001-MN (attorney/party report), which would list every attorney who entered an appearance.

I'll research defense-side counsel for Accelo in this case.

Good — a strong lead. Let me dig into the defense-side filings.

Let me verify the PHV counsel and check the full docket.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Accelo, Inc. — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Accelo, Inc., 1:23-cv-00001-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line: Accelo is represented by a two-tier defense team: Delaware local counsel at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Brian P. Egan) and out-of-state lead counsel admitted pro hac vice — Timothy P. Getzoff and Ellen K. Levish (Holland & Hart LLP, Boulder, Colorado). This is the mirror image of the plaintiff side (Devlin as the sole, Delaware-barred filer), so this is the first place the case file gains a genuine local/PHV split.

Verified Defense Counsel

Docket support

• D.I. 8 — MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Timothy P. Getzoff and Ellen K. Levish, filed by Accelo, Inc. (filed and signed on the CM/ECF record as "(Egan, Brian)"), entered May 18, 2023; SO ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika the same day. The Patexia document list for this case shows the SO ORDERED text and the motion as the two entries for May 18, 2023. (Source: Patexia litigation documents list, Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Accelo, Inc.)
• The plaintiff-side section of this file already establishes the surrounding docket (D.I. 25 scheduling order, Dec. 12, 2023; D.I. 28 extension; D.I. 29 Notice of Settlement in Principle, Jan. 4, 2024). The defense's PHV entry (D.I. 8) predates all of that, meaning Accelo was actively represented by the Egan/Getzoff/Levish team through the four months before settlement.

Important nuances and gaps

1. Timing. Accelo did not appear on the docket for roughly four and a half months after the Jan. 1, 2023 complaint; the PHV motion is the first defense-side filing I can date (May 18, 2023). I could not retrieve a separate Rule 12 motion, answer, or a Notice of Appearance by Egan — if one exists it is in entries I did not pull. The absence of a located answer is a sourcing gap, not evidence that none was filed.

2. Firm affiliation for the PHV attorneys at the relevant time is inferred. Getzoff's and Levish's Holland & Hart / Boulder affiliation is confirmed by 2025-era sources (Chambers, AIPLA, TTAB and E.D.N.Y. filings). I did not independently confirm they were at Holland & Hart in May 2023; there is a small chance the PHV motion listed a different firm of record then. Treat the firm line as "high confidence, not directly sourced to the 2023 filing."

3. Who actually signed D.I. 8. The docket's CM/ECF filer tag is "(Egan, Brian)," and Brian P. Egan of Morris Nichols is the Delaware IP litigator who matches that name and the D. Del. local-counsel pattern. I did not retrieve the motion PDF itself, so I cannot rule out that a different Delaware attorney at Morris Nichols also appeared. No other defense attorney names surfaced in the sources I reviewed.

4. ⚠️ Contradiction with the previously generated section. That section states, "(e.g., an attorney signing as 'Cameron Clark,' per D.I. 26)." I could not verify any "Cameron Clark" appearance in this matter, and nothing in the defense-side record I retrieved supports it. Given the parties (Accelo is a San Francisco company) and the PHV team identified here, I'd treat "Cameron Clark" as unconfirmed and possibly a misread of an ECF entry — flag for correction if the full docket shows otherwise. I am not carrying it forward as defendant counsel.

5. In-house counsel. No Accelo in-house attorney appears on the docket or in the sources retrieved. Accelo is a relatively small SaaS company; it is common for such defendants to litigate entirely through outside counsel, which is consistent with what I found.

6. Sourcing caveat / authoritative step. I could not pull a live PACER docket sheet for 1:23-cv-00001-MN. My reconstruction relies on the Patexia document list, the Ex Parte case page, firm bios, and the plaintiff-side filings described in the earlier section. Because D. Del. practice frequently adds multiple local-counsel names on a single Notice of Appearance, the authoritative step is a direct PACER attorney/party report for 1:23-cv-00001-MN, which would list every attorney who entered an appearance and their firm of record.

Case context (for the file)

Unlike most of the roughly 15+ companion suits Devlin filed in D. Del. in 2023, the Accelo case was docketed as the lead case (23-1), and it produced at least one substantive defense-side event (the May 18, 2023 PHV admission) before the January 4, 2024 Notice of Settlement in Principle ended the case. Accelo's defense team (Morris Nichols + Holland & Hart) is the only defense lineup I have been able to document in this campaign so far — a useful data point if you later compare whether other defendants in the campaign shared counsel.