Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freshworks, Inc.

I'll research this case across the sources you named, starting with the docket and the parties' identities.

Important finding: the docket shows a dismissal in August 2023, so the "open" status in the metadata may be stale. Let me verify that and dig into the accused product, the ownership structure, and the wider campaign.

The docket shows a 2023 dismissal, which contradicts the "open" status. Let me pin down the dismissal terms, the accused Freshworks product, and defense counsel.

Case Overview: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freshworks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00108-MN (D. Del.)

Correction to the case metadata first: this case is not open. Per the docket, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on August 8, 2023 (D.I. 17), which Judge Noreika so ordered on August 9, 2023, terminating the case (D.I. 18; D.I. 19 patent-report entry). The "open" status and the "2023-03-28 last update" in the summary reflect a stale third-party scrape, not the operative docket. See https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-Freshworks-Inc-id-[186318](/patent/186318)/documents and https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv00108/81362. I could not verify from any public source whether the Freshworks dismissal was with or without prejudice — the docket text reads only "Stipulation of Dismissal," and the underlying PDF was not retrievable. (In the parallel Hive Technology case, reporting indicates a Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissal with prejudice, but that is a different defendant and should not be imputed here.)

The parties. Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC is a non-practicing patent assertion entity — its Rule 7.1 disclosure states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed" (D.I. 4), and it makes no accused product. It is closely tied to Pennar Software Corporation, the original assignee and applicant of record on both asserted patents, which appears as a co-plaintiff in several of the parallel suits (e.g., Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.); Web 2.0 Techs. v. Nulab, S.D.N.Y.; Web 2.0 Techs. v. Workfront, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00104). Both patents name the Chaganti family as inventors — Naren Chaganti (Town and Country, MO), Sitapathi Rao Chaganti and Damayanti Chaganti — and Pennar is listed as assignee at Virginia Beach, VA. See https://patents.justia.com/assignee/pennar-software-corporation and https://ie.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=[6845448B1](/patent/6845448B1). So the structure looks like an inventor-controlled operating/licensing company (Pennar) feeding an assertion vehicle (Web 2.0) — the sort of split-ownership arrangement defendants routinely probe for Article III standing and "all substantial rights" problems. Defendant Freshworks, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated, San Mateo–based SaaS vendor (publicly traded since its 2021 IPO) whose product family includes Freshdesk (customer support), Freshservice (IT service management), and Freshsales/Freshworks CRM. I was unable to verify which specific Freshworks products the complaint names as accused instrumentalities — the complaint (D.I. 1) is not publicly available in full, and no secondary report identifies them. Based on the theory pled against the co-filed Zendesk defendant (role-based agent permissions applied to tickets and customer records, plus shared ticket/document data), the accused functionality is most likely Freshworks' agent-role/permission and ticket-collaboration features, but that is inference, not sourced fact.

The patents and procedural posture. Both asserted patents claim priority to January 2000 and, per the N.D. Ill. court's opinion, expired in 2020 — years before suit was filed, which caps recovery at pre-expiration back damages within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 and eliminates injunction leverage. Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals LLC, No. 23-cv-0230, slip op. at 1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024) (Blakey, J.), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv00230/[425327](/patent/425327)/43/. U.S. 6,845,448 B1 ("Online Repository for Personal Information," issued Jan. 18, 2005, App. No. 09/478,796): a server-side method in which a user stores personal information as discrete objects, assigns security levels "at any granularity," and the server releases only authorized portions to requesters while logging and rejecting unauthorized requesters. U.S. 8,117,644 B2 ("Method and System for Online Document Collaboration," App. No. 12/799,945): a server-side method for collaborative document editing — accounts, access restrictions on a stored document, identity verification of a second user seeking to modify it, permission-based editing, and recording which users approved or disapproved the edits. Procedurally, the case went: complaint filed Jan. 27, 2023 with jury demand (D.I. 1); assigned Feb. 1, 2023 to Judge Noreika as one of four "associated cases" (23-104, -105, -107, -108); Freshworks moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on June 26, 2023 (D.I. 12, 13); Web 2.0 opposed (D.I. 14, July

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and party/patent background.

Key docket found. Let me pull the full CourtListener docket and the dismissal papers.

Now let me examine the substance of Freshworks' dismissal motion and check for PTAB activity on these patents.

I've gathered substantial docket information. One more targeted check on the dismissal terms and PTAB activity:

I'll research the counsel of record for Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC in this Delaware case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC

Bottom line: The public docket in Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Freshworks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00108-MN (D. Del.) reflects a single plaintiff-side attorney of record: Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware), who served as both lead counsel and Delaware/local counsel. No co-counsel, pro hac vice admission, or in-house counsel for Web 2.0 appears on the docket.

Attorney detail

Docket support for the identification

• D.I. 1 (Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 1/27/2023, Jury Demand) against Freshworks, Inc. on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,845,448 B1 and 8,117,644 B2 — filed by Web 2.0 Technologies LLC; the plaintiff-side filings in this case are all electronically signed by Devlin (Timothy).
• D.I. 6 (3/29/2023) — Summons Returned Executed, filed by "Devlin, Timothy."
• D.I. 14 (7/10/2023) — Answering Brief in Opposition to Freshworks's motion to dismiss, filed by Web 2.0 Technologies LLC, signed "Devlin, Timothy."
• D.I. 17 (8/8/2023) — Stipulation of Dismissal by Web 2.0 Technologies LLC, signed "Devlin, Timothy"; D.I. 18 (8/9/2023) — SO ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika, civil case terminated. See the document index at Patexia and the docket summary at Justia; UniCourt lists "Plaintiff Attorney: Timothy Devlin" (UniCourt).

Important caveats / corrections to the case posture

1. The case is no longer open. The metadata in this prompt says "status: open," but the docket shows a stipulation of dismissal (D.I. 17) so ordered on 8/9/2023, terminating the case (D.I. 18, D.I. 19 Report to the Commissioner). I did not locate the stipulation's prejudice terms for this specific case (Patexia shows a 2-page stipulation but not its text); in the parallel Web 2.0 cases the dismissals were typically with prejudice, so treat that as unconfirmed here. The last retrieved docket snapshot underlying the existing case summary (3/28/2023) predates this termination.
2. No other appearances found. The Patexia document list for this case (D.I. 12–19) shows no pro hac vice motions, no notices of appearance by additional plaintiff counsel, and no in-house counsel entry. Freshworks was represented on the defense side by John Phillips and David Bilson (D.I. 12, 13, 15, 16) — a different firm and not relevant to plaintiff's side.
3. Firm affiliation of related-case counsel. In the companion wave of Web 2.0 Technologies suits, other Devlin Law Firm attorneys have appeared for Web 2.0 — e.g., Jason Michael Wejnert in Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.) (Alice dismissal, J. Blakey, Mar. 25, 2024), reported by Bloomberg Law/IP Law Daily. I found no record of Wejnert (or any other Devlin attorney) entering an appearance in the Freshworks case; do not assume he was of record here.
4. Unverified item: I could not independently view the signature block of D.I. 1 (the complaint itself is not on a free source I could open). It is possible the complaint was signed by an additional Devlin Law Firm attorney whose name would then appear on the filing, but the docket's filer/signatory metadata consistently shows only Devlin.

Practical note for the case file: because the only plaintiff-side counsel of record is a Wilmington-based firm with no out-of-district co-counsel appearing, all communications, service, and any Rule 41/settlement mechanics for this matter run through Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE (jdevlin contact via devlinlawfirm.com; firm profile: https://devlinlawfirm.com/timothy-devlin/).

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

Counsel of record for Freshworks, Inc. — D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-00108-MN

Important threshold correction to the case posture: the docket metadata in the prompt ("open") is stale. Per the D. Del. docket, the case was terminated on August 9, 2023, when Judge Noreika so-ordered the parties' stipulation of dismissal (D.I. 17, filed Aug. 8, 2023 by plaintiff's counsel Devlin; D.I. 18 "SO ORDERED … Civil Case Terminated," signed Aug. 9, 2023; D.I. 19 patent report to the Commissioner forwarding the stipulation). The dismissal came roughly a week before Freshworks' reply brief in support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion was due (deadline had been extended to Aug. 14, 2023 — D.I. 15, 16), i.e., while the § 101 motion to dismiss was still pending. Sources: Patexia docket mirror, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Web-20-Technologies-LLC-v-Freshworks-Inc-id-186318/documents; Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv00108/81362.

Attorneys appearing for Freshworks

Both names and the Phillips/Bilson pairing as a Wilmington patent-defense team are confirmed by the docket's ECF filer attributions and by contemporaneous D. Del. dockets in which they appear together (e.g., DataCloud Techs., LLC v. VOXX Int'l Corp., D. Del. (Phillips, Bilson notices of appearance); Health Discovery Corp. v. NVIDIA Corp., D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-01588 (Bilson/Phillips filings)).

What I could not verify — flagging explicitly rather than guessing

• Lead trial / outside (non-Delaware) counsel: I could not retrieve a document that identifies Freshworks' national/handling firm. The natural source would be the signature block of the opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss (D.I. 13, 25 pp.) or any pro hac vice motion, which would have been filed in the entries after the summons return (D.I. 6, Mar. 29, 2023) and before D.I. 11 (June 20, 2023). Those entries (approximately D.I. 7–10 — notices of appearance, and any pro hac vice motions) were not visible in the free docket mirrors I could reach, so I cannot name an outside firm, an of-counsel attorney, or any in-house lawyer without risking fabrication. I am not naming one.
• No in-house counsel appears in any docket entry I retrieved.
• No pro hac vice admission for this case is confirmed in the sources retrieved; given that only a motion-to-dismiss track ran for ~six weeks before dismissal, it is possible none was sought, but I cannot state that as fact.
• Nothing was sealed in the visible docket; the gap is a retrieval limitation, not sealing.

Practical note on the outcome

Because dismissal occurred by stipulation while Freshworks' § 101 motion was pending, the docket does not reflect a ruling on the merits in this case. For comparison, the same two patents were held abstract and ineligible in the parallel campaign: Web 2.0 Techs. LLC v. 37signals LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024) (Blakey, J.) (dismissed without prejudice under Alice; 37signals represented by Jacqueline Genovese Bova of Goodwin Procter). Judge Noreika also entered a coordinated order across the D. Del. Web 2.0 cases in late 2023 probing the Pennar Software Corporation ownership/joinder discrepancy — issued after Freshworks had already been dismissed.

Recommended verification step: pull D.I. 7–13 from PACER/RECAP (or the ECF "Attorneys" tab for the case) to capture the notice(s) of appearance and the D.I. 13 signature block; that will resolve the lead/outside-counsel question definitively.