Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freedcamp, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the plaintiff, the patents, and the broader assertion campaign.

Case Overview: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freedcamp, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal.)

The parties. Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC is a patent-assertion vehicle that, together with co-plaintiff Pennar Software Corporation (the original assignee and owner of record on both asserted patents), launched a coordinated campaign in early 2023 against small and mid-sized SaaS collaboration and project-management vendors. This is not a classic "acquired-patent" PAE play: the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies the related Pennar/Web 2.0 filings under "Individual-inventor-started" as well as "Acquired patents," and the '448 patent names the Chaganti family (Naren, Sitapathi Rao, and Damayanti Chaganti) as inventors, assigned to Pennar Software Corp. of Alexandria, Va. (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/pennar-software-corporation; https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5628977](/patent/5628977)/FID979/OG/html/1290-3/us06845448-20050118.html). The campaign's lead counsel is Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC; the Freedcamp docket was handled by an attorney named Alex Chan (I could not independently confirm his firm affiliation). Defendant Freedcamp, Inc. is a privately held, bootstrapped Santa Barbara, California company founded in 2010 by Angel Grablev. It sells a freemium web/mobile project-management and team-collaboration platform — widely described as a free alternative to Basecamp — with unlimited free users/projects, tasks, milestones, calendars, discussions, file storage, and paid add-ons such as Issue Tracker, CRM, Invoices, Wiki, and Gantt charts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedcamp). It is a small operating company (roughly 11–50 employees) reporting more than 2 million users.

The accused technology and the patents. The complaint targeted Freedcamp's platform holistically — user account creation and profiles, the JSON user_id field, administrator-configurable roles/permissions ("who can do or see what"), and the FileEdit and Wiki document features — mapped onto independent claim 1 of each patent (complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/cacd/2:23-cv-02246/doc/analysis/1). The two asserted patents are:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, "Online Repository for Personal Information" (filed Jan. 7, 2000; issued Jan. 18, 2005; Pennar Software Corp. assignee) — a server-side method for storing a user's personal information as discrete "information objects," letting the user assign security levels to each object, and automatically disbursing approved portions to authorized requesters while rejecting unauthorized ones. It solves the problem of re-entering profile data to download files from the internet.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644, "Method and System for Online Document Collaboration" (priority to January 2000; issued 2012) — a server method for storing a document, associating access restrictions, receiving a request to modify it, verifying the requesting user, permitting modification, and storing identifying information of users who approved or disapproved the changes.

A critical and frequently overlooked fact: both patents expired in 2020, years before the 2023 suits were filed — a finding recited by the N.D. Ill. court in the parallel 37signals case (Web 2.0 Techs. LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-0230, 2024 WL ... (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024), slip op. at 2; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv00230/[425327](/patent/425327)/43/).

Procedural posture and why venue matters. Filed Mar. 27, 2023 in the Central District of California (Los Angeles/Western Division, case prefix "2"), assigned to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with Magistrate Judge Steve Kim (Dkt. 8, Mar. 29, 2023); Judge Marshall entered her standing order Apr. 3, 2023 (Dkt. 11). Venue was essentially home-field for the defendant — Freedcamp's Santa Barbara headquarters sits in the C.D. Cal. (Western Division) — so there was no serious transfer fight and no need for the plaintiff to litigate personal jurisdiction or venue. Freedcamp was served Apr. 16, 2023 (answer due May 8, 2023) (Dkt. 12), but never answered: Judge Marshall issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution on June 13, 2023 (Dkt. 13), prompting the plaintiff to file an application for entry of default under Rule 55(a) on Aug. 11, 2023 with a supporting declaration (Dkts. 14–15), which drew a Notice of Deficiency on Aug. 14, 2023 because the wrong event was selected (Dkt. 16). The case terminated Apr. 23, 2024 on a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral dismissal available only because no answer had been served (docket summary at https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-Freedcamp-Inc-id-[187895](/patent/187895)/documents; https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/web-2-0-technologies-v-freedcamp-voluntary-dismissal-in-online-collaboration-patent-dispute-patsnap-eureka/). Note the odd trajectory: the plaintiff was pushing for a default judgment in mid-2023, then walked away with prejudice roughly eight months later, which is more consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic retreat than with a merits concession.

Why the case is notable. Three things make this otherwise minor docket worth tracking. First, it is one data point in a broad, serial assertion wave: the same plaintiffs filed against Accelo (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00001), Realtimeboard/Miro (1:23-cv-00004), Workfront (1:23-cv-00104), Zendesk (1:23-cv-00105), Freshworks (1:23-cv-00108), 37signals/Basecamp (N.D. Ill. 1:23-cv-00230), ProofHub (1:23-cv-00343), Nulab (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02589), and Freedcamp — and then, in 2025, pivoted to hospital systems in W.D. Tex. (Ascension Providence, Advent Health Central Texas, Seton Medical Center Harker Heights), suggesting the patents were re-tooled after the software campaign stalled (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/pennar-software-corporation). The D. Del. court took notice of the messy plaintiff lineup, ordering briefing on why Pennar was a co-plaintiff in only some cases (see the Oct. 2023 oral order quoted at https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/47631245/Web_20_Technologies,_Inc_v_Workfront_Inc). Second, the § 101 linkage is the real story: one month before Freedcamp dismissed, Judge John Robert Blakey in N.D. Ill. held that both patents are directed to the abstract idea of "storing information and controlling access to it," that the specifications disclose no new computer components, and that the complaint pleaded no inventive concept — dismissing the claims without prejudice with leave to amend (Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals, No. 1:23-cv-0230 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024); http://g.casetext.com/case/web-20-techs-v-37signals-llc; https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-n-d-ill-two-computer-related-patents-found-to-cover-ineligible-subject-matter/ipm012395dc55b9f6480795901e113ef425ac). Public commentary reports the 37signals case ultimately ended in a with-prejudice dismissal, which — if accurate — is worth flagging as sourced only to litigation-intelligence summaries (PatSnap), not to a primary opinion I could verify. Third, the market context: the campaign targeted exactly the collaborative-SaaS sector (project management, whiteboards, helpdesk)

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the plaintiff's litigation campaign.

Let me get the full docket and the plaintiff's broader campaign context.

Let me pull the full Freedcamp docket and check for PTAB proceedings on both patents.

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freedcamp, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: This was a short, low-intensity case in a much larger campaign. Freedcamp never appeared, never answered, and never moved against the complaint. The only merits-relevant developments were (a) the plaintiff's own default application after Freedcamp failed to respond, and (b) the plaintiff's unilateral with-prejudice dismissal roughly a year after filing — filed within a month of a parallel court holding the same two patents ineligible under § 101.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint tracked the substantially identical infringement allegations the plaintiff used across its campaign — mapping Freedcamp's account creation, user_id identifiers, user profile fields, administrator permission settings, and encryption to the '448 claims, and Freedcamp's FileEdit/Wiki document features to the '644 claims. The Ex Parte complaint analysis also refers to a "Corrected Independent Claim 1" of the '448 patent, which implies a certificate of correction or post-issuance correction to that claim; I could not independently verify the nature of that correction from a primary source.

Notably absent: There was no answer, no counterclaims, and no appearance of any kind by Freedcamp in this docket. This is unusual and is the pivotal fact for the entire case — it is what let the plaintiff dismiss unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None were filed. Specifically:

• No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss (e.g., no § 101 challenge in this case, even though that argument was being pressed successfully elsewhere).
• No motion to transfer (notably, the plaintiff chose to sue this California SaaS company in C.D. Cal. rather than in its Delaware home venue used for most of the campaign).
• No motion to stay pending IPR — and no IPR existed to justify one (see §6).
• No summary judgment motion.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No claim construction order, no Markman briefing, and no scheduling order setting a Markman date appear on the docket. The case died before the pleadings closed.

4. Discovery

No discovery of any kind. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no scheduling order, and no discovery motions appear. The case never got past the pleading/pre-answer stage.

5. The one contested-flavored event: default and the OSC

• 2023-06-13 (entered 2023-06-14): Judge Marshall issued a Minute Order in Chambers — Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 13), on the court's own motion, because Freedcamp had not responded. Response was due 2023-08-30. The order expressly identified plaintiff's application for entry of default under Rule 55(a) as an acceptable alternative response.
• 2023-08-11: Plaintiff filed an APPLICATION for Default Judgment against Freedcamp, Inc. Pursuant to Rule 55(a) (Doc. 14), with a supporting Declaration of Alex Chan (Doc. 15). This was a docketing mis-step: it invoked Rule 55(a) (entry of default by the clerk) while using the event for a default judgment application.
• 2023-08-14: Notice to Filer of Deficiencies (Doc. 16) — the clerk flagged the wrong event and directed plaintiff to use the "Clerk to Enter Default" event instead. No corrected filing appears in the sources I reviewed, and no default was ever entered on the docket I can see.

6. Final disposition

• 2024-04-23: Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Freedcamp had never served an answer (or a summary judgment motion), the dismissal was available as of right without court order.
• 2024-04-23: Case terminated. No judgment, no damages, no injunction, no fee motion, and no appeal.
• Practical effect: the with-prejudice designation bars Web 2.0 Technologies from re-asserting these two patents against Freedcamp.

Why this is the tell: A with-prejudice, pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal after a plaintiff has already moved for entry of default is a classic signature of a confidential resolution (license/settlement) or a deliberate abandonment of an unprofitable case — not a litigation victory. No consideration or agreement is disclosed on the public docket, so any settlement inference is inference only.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR)

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding at the PTAB on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,845,448 or 8,117,644. No stay motion, no PTAB certificate, and no reference to a PTAB proceeding appears anywhere in the Freedcamp materials I reviewed. If an IPR exists, it is not reflected in the public sources surfaced here — treat this as a "not found," not a definitive negative. The patents do have § 101 exposure (see below), which may explain why defendants litigated eligibility in district court rather than pursuing inter partes review.

8. Related campaign developments that bear on this case

The Freedcamp suit was one of a wave of near-identical complaints filed in early 2023 by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (often alongside Pennar Software Corporation, the recorded assignee), represented by the Devlin Law Firm LLC. Counterpart suits included:

• Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals LLC (Basecamp), No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.)
• Web 2.0 Techs. v. Realtimeboard, Inc. (Miro), No. 1:23-cv-00004 (D. Del.)
• Web 2.0 Techs. v. Hive Technology, No. 1:23-cv-00002 (D. Del.)

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

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

Let me dig into docket-specific sources.

Bottom line

No defense counsel of record is identifiable in this case. The publicly indexed docket for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freedcamp, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal.) shows only plaintiff-side filings signed by plaintiff's counsel. There is no notice of appearance, answer, motion, or stipulation filed on behalf of Freedcamp, Inc. — and the docket affirmatively indicates Freedcamp defaulted rather than appeared (plaintiff filed a Rule 55(a) application for entry of default against Freedcamp on Aug. 11, 2023).

I was unable to complete a live PACER/CourtListener docket pull before running out of search steps, so I flag the limits of this sourcing below.

What the docket shows about representation

Source: Patexia litigation docket listing for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freedcamp, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02246 — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-Freedcamp-Inc-id-187895/documents

The critical inference: plaintiff moved for default in August 2023 because Freedcamp had not appeared. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral dismissal in April 2024 was itself available precisely because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been served — a procedural posture that ordinarily coexists with a non-appearing defendant. The Ex Parte case profile for this docket likewise lists "No Attorneys" of record. See https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/cacd/2:23-cv-02246/web-20-tech-llc-v-freedcamp-inc

Requested attorney table

Plaintiff's counsel (for completeness — not the answer you asked for)

• Alex Chan — plaintiff's counsel of record; signed the proof of service (Doc. 12) and the Rule 55(a) application for default judgment (Doc. 14). Role: lead counsel for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC. Firm/office: not verified from the sources retrieved — I could not confirm whether he practiced solo or with a firm, so I am not naming a firm rather than guess.

Parallel Web 2.0 Technologies campaign (context on defense-side firms generally — NOT counsel in this case)

If the underlying interest is who typically defends this patent family, the related suits against other SaaS defendants were handled by identifiable defense firms. These are different cases and different parties and should not be attributed to Freedcamp:

• Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.) — defense by Goodwin Procter LLP and Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP; attorneys listed include I. Neel Chatterjee, Amadou Kilkenny Diaw, Amanda E. Stephenson, Jacqueline Genovese Bova, Jeffrey A. Rossman, and Jeffrey J. Catalano.
• Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Hive Technology, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00002 (D. Del.) — defense by Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP (Marc J. Rachman, Samuel T. Hirzel II, Sarah Benowich); dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii).
• Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Trello, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00344 (D. Del.) — pro hac vice appearances by Adam R. Brausa, Annie A. Lee, and Timothy C. Saulsbury (firm not confirmed from the retrieved docket text).
• Plaintiff-side counsel across the campaign: Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC (Delaware filings) and Neil A. Benchell / Jason Michael Wejnert (N.D. Ill.).

Sources: Patexia listings for Trello and Zendesk; PatSnap Eureka case writeups for 37signals and Hive Technology; PacerMonitor listing for Web 2.0 Technologies, Inc. v. Workfront Inc., 1:23-cv-00104 (D. Del.).

Caveats and sourcing limits

1. I could not directly query PACER or the CourtListener RECAP docket page for this case (search budget exhausted). My findings rest on third-party docket aggregators (Patexia, Ex Parte, Justia, UniCourt), which can lag or omit entries.
2. The absence of an appearance is an inference from the default application, not a confirmed negative. It is possible a defense appearance exists that the aggregators did not index, or that Freedcamp appeared only informally/settled without filing. The most reliable verification would be the full PACER docket sheet (Dkt. 1–20) for 2:23-cv-02246.
3. No sealed filings were identified, but this case's dispute-resolution terms (if any) would not be public regardless.
4. Do not attribute the 37signals/Hive/Trello defense teams to Freedcamp. I list them only as campaign background. Per the case metadata you supplied, this matter was resolved by unilateral plaintiff dismissal before answer — a posture in which defendants frequently never retain or appear through counsel of record at all.