Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Createch Group Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the parties, docket, and patent.

Key finding: the docket and default-judgment order show two patents asserted ('448 and '644), not just '448. Let me dig into the defendant, the campaign, and validity challenges.

Case overview: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Createch Group Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00045-MN (D. Del.)

Parties. Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC is a non-practicing patent assertion entity represented by Timothy Devlin of the Devlin Law Firm (Wilmington, Del.); its Rule 7.1 disclosure lists no parents or affiliates (D.I. 4). Seyfarth Shaw's "NPE Showcase" series profiled it in April 2023 as a high-volume filer asserting decade-old software patents against well-known SaaS companies, noting that its cases "last only a few months," a pattern the authors attribute to cost-of-defense settlements (Seyfarth/Mondaq, Apr. 17, 2023). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database tags the campaign as "individual-inventor-started"/"acquired patents," and Pennar Software Corporation — the assignee named on the face of both patents — appears as co-plaintiff in many (but not all) of the related suits (Stanford NPE DB). Defendant Createch Group Inc. is the vendor behind GoodDay (goodday.work), a cloud work/project-management and team-collaboration platform with Kanban/Gantt/workload views, time tracking, and role-based permissions; the complaint and default-judgment papers refer to defendant as "Createch Group Inc., d/b/a GoodDay," and service of the default-judgment motion was made on "Defendant GoodDay's Delaware registered agent." Caveat: a separate, much larger Montreal-based IT-integration firm also uses the "Createch" name (Createch, a Talan company, founded 1993); the public record I reviewed ties the defendant to the GoodDay product, not to the Montreal consultancy, but I could not independently verify the corporate lineage, and third-party profiles of GoodDay's vendor (Costa Mesa, Calif.; founded 2012/2015) conflict on details.

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentality is the GoodDay SaaS platform — specifically its account/permission architecture and document-and-approval workflow features, which the complaint maps onto the claimed "security levels" assigned to "information objects," server-side retrieval of authorized personal information, and rejection of unauthorized requests. The complaint pleads infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 ("Online repository for personal information") — a server method for gathering a user's personal information, tagging each information object with an assigned security level, releasing it only to authorized requesters, and flagging repeat unauthorized requesters as "junk"; and U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 ("Method and system for online document collaboration") — establishing user accounts on an Internet server, associating access restrictions with a stored document, verifying a requesting user's identity, permitting modification per granted rights, and recording who approved or disapproved the modification (D.I. 1; D.I. 3, Report to Commissioner listing "U.S. 6,845,448 B1; U.S. 8,117,644 B2"). Note a discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata supplied to me lists only the '448 patent, but the docket, the Rule 3 report, and the default-judgment papers are unambiguous that both patents were pleaded and that judgment was sought on both; the '448 is fairly treated as the lead patent, but the '644 travels with it in every case in this campaign.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed January 13, 2023 in the District of Delaware and initially assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly, the case was reassigned on January 18, 2023 to Judge Maryellen Noreika as related to 23-cv-1 through 23-cv-4 — the first wave of the Web 2.0 campaign — which put a dozen-plus GoodDay-adjacent SaaS suits before one judge. Defendant was served March 29, 2023 (D.I. 7), never answered, and never appeared; after Judge Noreika's August 31, 2023 order to show cause under Local Rule 41.1 (D.I. 8), plaintiff requested default (D.I. 9), the Clerk entered default on October 20, 2023 (D.I. 13), and plaintiff moved for default judgment on April 23, 2024 (D.I. 15), served by Priority Mail and on the Delaware registered agent. The court granted the motion under Rule 55(b)(2) and the Third Circuit's Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984), factors — but, notably, it declined to rubber-stamp plaintiff's proposed "cease and desist" language, treating that request as "tantamount to a motion for permanent injunction" and analyzing it separately under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and the four eBay factors ([slip op., Court

Bottom line

This is a default-judgment case, not a litigated one. There was no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding. The only substantive judicial act was Judge Noreika's decision granting Web 2.0's Rule 55(b)(2) motion for default judgment and separately parsing the plaintiff's proposed "cease and desist" language as a request for a permanent injunction under § 283.

One record correction up front: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, but the complaint and the default-judgment order both recite two asserted patents — the '448 patent ("Online Repository for Personal Information") and U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 ("Method and System for Online Document Collaboration"). The D. Del. patent report (D.I. 3) lists both. I treat both as asserted.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (no answer, no counterclaims)

The roughly 2½-month gap between filing and service (2023-01-13 → 2023-03-29) is the first signal of the prosecution problem that followed, and it is what triggered the court's sua sponte Rule 41.1 order.

2. Failure-to-prosecute order and entry of default

• 2023-08-31 — Judge Noreika issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under D. Del. Local Rule 41.1, with response due 2023-09-08 (D.I. 8). This is the pivotal procedural event: the court intervened before the plaintiff had even defaulted the defendant.
• 2023-09-08 — Plaintiff filed both its OSC response (D.I. 10) and a Request for Entry of Default (D.I. 9, with the Devlin affidavit and proposed entry).
• 2023-09-11 — Oral order requiring plaintiff to serve the default request and file proof of service (D.I. 11).
• 2023-09-21 — Affidavit of service on Createch d/b/a GoodDay (D.I. 12).
• 2023-10-20 — Clerk's Entry of Default as to Createch Group Inc. (D.I. 13), served on defendant 2023-10-24.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

The only substantive motion in the case was the default-judgment motion. There was no motion to dismiss, no motion to transfer, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no motion for summary judgment — none was possible, because the defendant never appeared and no Scheduling Order, discovery, or claim construction ever issued.

• 2024-04-23 — Plaintiff's motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2) (D.I. 15), seeking judgment of infringement of both patents; the proposed order (D.I. 15-1) also asked that defendant "immediately cease and desist from infringing" the two patents "in the manner alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint." Notably, the motion was served by Priority Mail and by process server on "Defendant GoodDay's Delaware registered agent" — a sixth-month gap after the Clerk's default (2023-10-20), itself unusual.
• Date of decision: the court's memorandum order granting D.I. 15 is posted at CourtListener opinion 10300593, Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. Createch Grp. Inc., C.A. No. 23-45-MN (D. Del.). The exact entry date is not reliably reflected in the sources I could reach; it post-dates 2024-04-23 and precedes the present posture. I am flagging that as not well sourced rather than guessing.

Holding on the default motion (three Hritz factors): the court applied Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180–81 (3d Cir. 1984) — (1) prejudice to plaintiff if default is lifted; (2) whether defendant has a meritorious defense; (3) whether default resulted from culpable misconduct — and found all three favored default because Createch had "ignored Court Orders, asserted no defense (let alone a meritorious one), and taken no action in this case." Default judgment was GRANTED on infringement of the '448 and '644 patents.

Holding on injunctive relief (the part the court carved out): the court held that the cease-and-desist request in plaintiff's proposed order was "tantamount to a motion for permanent injunction," that injunctive relief is available under 35 U.S.C. § 283, and that such relief is governed by the traditional four-factor test of eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) — irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, and public interest. Because the request came as unbriefed proposed-order language inside a default motion, the court did not fold the injunction into the judgment and treated it separately. There is no indication in the materials I could retrieve that a permanent injunction was later entered on a developed eBay record; the practical result is a money judgment plus a liability adjudication, not injunctive relief against GoodDay.

4. Claim construction, discovery, trial, post-trial motions

None of these stages occurred. For the record:

• Markman: none. No Scheduling Order, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman hearing or order. The claim-scope fights that would have decided this case went unadjudicated — most importantly, for the '448 patent, whether role-based access controls in a SaaS platform satisfy "receiving, from the first party, assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object," and for the '644 patent, whether general collaboration features meet "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications." Those limitations are where the parallel cases were actually lost (see §6).
• Discovery: no Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no infringement contentions, no documents produced, no depositions, no expert reports. Damages were therefore necessarily established (if at all) on the complaint's allegations and whatever the plaintiff submitted with D.I. 15, not on accused-product financials. The precise damages figure and whether the court fixed an amount versus reserving it is not confirmed in the sources I could access — do not assume a number.
• Trial/verdict: none; jury demand never acted on.
• Post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, § 285 fees): none. No fee motion appears on the docket; with no adversarial record, § 285 "exceptional case" relief would have been a nonstarter.
• Appeal: none taken. Any window under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (60 days) has long since run; there is no Federal Circuit docket for this case.

5. Final disposition and present posture

• Disposition: default judgment for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC against Createch Group Inc. d/b/a GoodDay on the '448 and '644 patents, with the permanent-injunction/cease-and-desist request treated as a separate § 283/eBay matter rather than granted as part of the judgment.
• Posture as of 2026-10-17: final and non-appealable; inactive. Given that a defaulted Canadian SaaS vendor never appeared, the judgment's real-world significance is minimal — it establishes infringement liability on paper but carries no issue-preclusive or precedential weight on validity, because § 101 and §§ 102/103 were never litigated (a default admits the complaint's well-pled allegations only, and patent validity is not thereby adjudicated against the world).
• The validity shadow: the very same two patents were held directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas under Alice step one and dismissed (without prejudice) in Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill. 2024-03-25, Blakey, J.). That ruling landed about a month before Web 2.0 moved for default judgment against Createch. The contrast is the analytically important point: Createch's non-appearance converted a case that was being lost on § 101 elsewhere into a default win.

6. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings

None identified. I found no IPR or PGR petition on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,845,448 or 8,117,644 in the materials searched, and structurally none was likely here: the sole defendant defaulted, and the parallel D. Del./N.D. Ill. defendants (Zendesk, Mango/ClickUp, 37signals, Google, Accelo) lit

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for the plaintiff.

Bottom line

Only one attorney has appeared for plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC in this case: Timothy Devlin, founder of Devlin Law Firm LLC in Wilmington, Delaware. He is the filer of record on every substantive entry on the docket (D.I. 1–6, 7, 9, 10, 12), the affidavit supporting the request for default (D.I. 9-1), and the default-judgment motion papers (D.I. 15). No pro hac vice motions, no co-counsel notices of appearance, and no in-house counsel appear on the docket. No attorney has appeared for Createch Group Inc. (consistent with the default).

Counsel of record

No other counsel of record. For completeness (these are related-case appearances, not appearances in Createch):

• Jason M. Wejnert (Devlin Law Firm LLC) — identified as counsel for Web 2.0 in the parallel N.D. Ill. case, Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (Bloomberg Law/IP Law Daily report of the Mar. 25, 2024 § 101 dismissal). No entry of appearance by him on the Createch docket.
• Christopher L. May (Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington) — Law360 firm profile lists him on Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. Nulab, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 27, 2023). No entry of appearance on the Createch docket.

I did not find any attorney from a second firm, any Delaware "local counsel" separate from Devlin Law Firm, or any in-house lawyer for Web 2.0/Pennar in this docket.

Docket support

• D.I. 1 – Complaint for Patent Infringement, jury demand, filed 1/13/2023 (filer: Devlin, Timothy).
• D.I. 3 – Report to Commissioner of Patents re U.S. 6,845,448 B1 and 8,117,644 B2.
• D.I. 4 – Rule 7.1 disclosure statement ("no parents or affiliates") filed by Web 2.0.
• D.I. 6 – Letter to Clerk from Timothy Devlin re notice of related cases (1/17/2023).
• D.I. 7 – Summons returned executed; Createch served 3/29/2023, answer due 4/19/2023.
• D.I. 8–13 – Order to show cause (8/31/2023), plaintiff’s response (9/8/2023), request for default with T. Devlin affidavit (9/8/2023), oral order on service (9/11/2023), affidavit of service (9/21/2023), Clerk’s Entry of Default (10/20/2023).
• D.I. 15 / 15-1 – Motion for default judgment filed 4/23/2024 with proposed order.
• Opinion/order granting default judgment (Judge Maryellen Noreika): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10300593/web-20-technologies-llc-v-createch-group-inc/ — the court granted the Rule 55(b)(2) motion but treated the "cease and desist" request in the proposed order as a separate permanent-injunction request requiring the eBay analysis.
• Docket aggregators confirming "Plaintiff Attorney: Timothy Devlin": UniCourt case page for 1:23-cv-00045 and Patexia docket page (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-Createch-Group-Inc-id-[185357](/patent/185357)/documents).

Caveats and one correction to the case metadata

• Verification limits. I did not pull the PACER images themselves; the attribution above rests on the RECAP/CourtListener docket text, UniCourt and Patexia docket mirrors, and the CourtListener opinion. The ECF "filer" field is Devlin for every plaintiff filing, but if the complaint's signature block lists additional Devlin Law Firm attorneys, that would not be visible in the text I could access. Nothing is sealed in this case, so this is a docket-visibility limit, not a sealing issue.
• Patent count. The case metadata lists only the ’448 patent, but the complaint, the D.I. 3 patent report, and the default-judgment order all reference both U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 and U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644. Worth reconciling in the case write-up if you are relying on patent counts from this docket.
• Experience notes are sourced from related-case reporting, not from a firm bio page I retrieved in this session. I have deliberately not stated Devlin's prior-firm history or bar-admission details, because I could not verify them here.

I'll research whether any counsel appeared for Createch Group Inc., including any post-default activity.

Bottom line

No attorney has ever appeared for Createch Group Inc. in this case — there is no defense counsel of record to profile. The docket is a one-sided record: every filing from D.I. 1 through the default-judgment papers is a plaintiff filing by Timothy Devlin, and no entry of appearance, pro hac vice motion, corporate disclosure statement, answer, motion, or letter on behalf of Createch appears anywhere. The court expressly so found in the order granting default judgment: "Defendant did not answer the complaint, move to dismiss, or otherwise appear," and later, "Defendant has neither responded to the motion [for default judgment], nor taken any other action in this case." That finding is the predicate for the Hritz factor analysis (no meritorious defense asserted, culpable conduct) on which the judgment rests.

Because the defendant defaulted, the answer to "who represents Createch" is: nobody, as of the record I could retrieve. This is a genuine non-appearance, not a sealing problem and not a "counsel hasn't appeared yet" situation.

Counsel table

Deliberately omitted: I will not name any firm as Createch's counsel. I found no source — docket text, CourtListener docket/opinion, UniCourt, Patexia, or press — identifying counsel for Createch in this case, and I did not locate any public statement by a firm that it represents Createch in any U.S. patent matter. Any name offered here would be fabricated.

Docket support

• D.I. 7 — Summons returned executed; Createch served 3/29/2023, answer due 4/19/2023. No answer followed.
• D.I. 8–13 — Order to show cause (8/31/2023) → plaintiff's response (9/8/2023) → Request for Default with Devlin affidavit (9/8/2023) → oral order requiring service of the default request (9/11/2023) → affidavit of service on Createch d/b/a GoodDay (9/21/2023) → Clerk's Entry of Default (D.I. 13, 10/20/2023). A defendant that had retained counsel would ordinarily have appeared by this point; the Clerk's entry of default is itself record proof that no appearance was on file.
• D.I. 15 / 15-1 — Default-judgment motion (4/23/2024) served "via United States Postal Service Priority Mail as well as ... process server on Defendant GoodDay's Delaware registered agent." Service on the registered agent rather than on counsel is consistent with there being no counsel of record.
• Default-judgment order (Judge Noreika), https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10300593/web-20-technologies-llc-v-createch-group-inc/ — recites the non-appearance finding verbatim and grants Rule 55(b)(2) relief while treating the "cease and desist" language in the proposed order as a separate permanent-injunction request requiring eBay analysis.
• Docket mirrors confirming the absence of any defense entry: UniCourt case page for 1:23-cv-00045 lists party/attorney details with "Plaintiff Attorney: Timothy Devlin" only and no defendant-attorney field populated (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-web-20-technologies-llc-v-createch-group-inc-[1380080](/patent/1380080)); Patexia's document tab for the case lists only D.I. 6–12 plus case-assignment entries, all plaintiff-side (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-Createch-Group-Inc-id-185357/documents).

Caveats and verification limits

• Staleness of the mirrors. The UniCourt page I retrieved reflects a last update of 12/27/2023 — i.e., before D.I. 15 (April 2024) and the default-judgment order. The Patexia document list likewise stops at D.I. 12. My confirmation that no appearance occurred through the default-judgment ruling therefore rests on the CourtListener opinion text, which affirmatively recites non-appearance as of that ruling, not on a complete 2024–2026 docket sheet.
• Post-judgment gap. I could not retrieve a full PACER docket sheet for entries after the default-judgment order. If Createch has since retained counsel to move under Rule 60(b) to vacate the default or to appeal, that appearance would not be captured in the sources I could access. Anyone relying on this for a current "who represents Createch" answer should pull the live PACER docket for 1:23-cv-00045-MN; treat my "no counsel" conclusion as verified through the default-judgment ruling, not necessarily through today's date.
• No sealed material. Nothing in this case appears sealed, so the absence of a defense appearance is a real absence on the public record, not an artifact of sealing or of a redacted filing.
• Cross-reference / metadata contradiction (reflagged). The default-judgment order confirms the earlier section's point: the case involves both U.S. Patent Nos. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644 — the order quotes the plaintiff's request for judgment "for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644" and the cease-and-desist request as to both. The case metadata's single-patent listing ('448 only) remains inconsistent with the docket and should be corrected in the case write-up.
• Entity note (unverified). The docket refers to the defendant as "Createch Group Inc. doing business as GoodDay," and service was effected on "GoodDay's Delaware registered agent." I did not verify Createch's jurisdiction of incorporation, principal place of business, or corporate relationship to GoodDay in this session, so I am not asserting it; the name mismatch is, however, a plausible explanation for a foreign defendant's non-appearance and worth noting in any analysis of whether the judgment is collectible or susceptible to a Rule 60(b)(4) service challenge.
• Analogous data point in the same wave (related, not this case). In the parallel N.D. Ill. matter, Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230, the defendant did appear (via counsel, and won a § 101 dismissal on 3/25/2024, as reported by Bloomberg Law/IP Law Daily) — useful contrast showing that the Createch default was defendant-specific, not a defect in Web 2.0's service across the campaign. Note that Jason Wejnert's appearance there is a related-case appearance and, as the prior section correctly states, not an appearance in Createch on either side.