Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Mango Technologies, Inc.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good baseline. Now let me dig into the specific docket outcome, the Oct. 5, 2023 order, and the ClickUp/Mango entity relationship.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Key facts are emerging. Let me dig into the Delaware docket specifics and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Litigation Chronology — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Mango Technologies, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00107-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line up front

This case is a single front in a mass-filed § 101 campaign, not a case that ever reached claim construction, discovery, or trial. The record I can verify ends at an Amended Complaint filed 2023-11-06 (D.I. 21); I could not confirm any docket activity after that date, and the case metadata supplied to me likewise flags the outcome as unconfirmed. The substantive merits ruling on the two asserted patents came in a sister case in N.D. Illinois, not in Delaware: both patents were held ineligible under Alice step one. I flag below exactly what is sourced and what is not.

---

1. Parties, patents, and campaign context

This suit was one of at least a dozen-plus filed by Web 2.0 Technologies beginning 2023-01-27 against project-management and CRM/workflow SaaS vendors, all asserting only these two patents. Same-day D. Del. filings included 1:23-cv-00104, -00105 (Zendesk), -00107 (Mango/ClickUp), and -00108 (Freshworks), all assigned to Judge Noreika and flagged as associated cases in the 2023-02-01 assignment order. Earlier D. Del. waves included Accelo (1:23-cv-00001), Hive Technology (1:23-cv-00002), LiquidPlanner (1:23-cv-00003), TaskWorld (1:23-cv-00042), and later Google (1:23-cv-00340) and ProofHub (1:23-cv-00343). Parallel out-of-district suits included 37signals/Basecamp (N.D. Ill. 1:23-cv-00230) and Nulab (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02589).

---

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2023-01-27 — Complaint for patent infringement filed with jury demand (D.I. 1), attaching four exhibits; Report to the Commissioner identifying the '448 and '644 patents (D.I. 3); Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 4); Summons issued (D.I. 5). No § 261/§ 281 assignment documentation issues were raised at filing.
• 2023-02-01 — Case assigned to Judge Noreika; associated with the three companion cases.
• 2023-06-20 / 06-22 — Mango filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 10) and its Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 12).
• Answer/counterclaims: No answer and no counterclaims appear anywhere on the accessible docket. Mango went directly to a dispositive pre-answer motion — standard practice in D. Del. patent cases and the reason there is no IPR-driven counterclaim strategy story here.
• 2023-07-05 — Web 2.0's answering brief in opposition (D.I. 13).
• 2023-07-12 — Mango's reply brief (D.I. 14).

Note the docket gap: D.I. 6–9, 11, 15, 19–20 do not appear in the accessible listing, so service/waiver/extension filings are unverified.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

The only substantive pre-trial motion was the Rule 12(b)(6) motion — and it was an eligibility motion. Based on the identical briefing in the parallel cases, Mango's motion argued that both asserted patents claim patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101 / Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) — the "abstract idea of storing information and controlling access to it."

• 2023-10-02 — Oral Order (D.I. 16), sua sponte: Judge Noreika noted that in comparable Web 2.0 filings elsewhere (37signals, Nulab, and the D. Del. Zendesk case), the plaintiff named Pennar Software Corporation as a party because Pennar is "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents," and that Pennar "is also listed as the assignee on the face of these two patents." The Court ordered plaintiff to file a letter by 2023-10-04 explaining the discrepancy and "whether Pennar Software Corporation is a required plaintiff in all of the related cases pending before this Court." This is a real-party-in-interest / standing-adjacent inquiry, and it is the single most distinctive docket event in this case.
• 2023-10-04 — Plaintiff's responsive letter (D.I. 17).
• 2023-10-05 — **Order ruling on pending motions to dismiss (D.I. 18

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

I found key details. Let me dig deeper into the docket and counsel.

Let me check the full docket via CourtListener and look for additional plaintiff counsel.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Mango Technologies, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00107-MN (D. Del.)

Bottom line

The plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC appears to have been represented in this action by a single-attorney Delaware team: Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware), who is the filer of record on every plaintiff-side filing retrievable from the docket. I found no pro hac vice motions and no second plaintiff-side attorney admitted in this case. Note the caveat on sourcing at the bottom.

Counsel identified

Timothy Devlin — Lead counsel; Delaware counsel of record

• Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC, 1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806 (Delaware office; the firm's practice is built around Wilmington patent litigation) — email tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com.
• Basis for identification: The docket sheet attributes to "Devlin, Timothy" the plaintiff-side filings in this case: the Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 13, filed July 5, 2023), and the letter to Judge Noreika responding to the Court's October 2, 2023 oral order regarding the Pennar Software Corporation / plaintiff-identity discrepancy (D.I. 17, filed Oct. 4, 2023). The original Complaint (D.I. 1, filed Jan. 27, 2023) was filed by plaintiff's counsel consistent with the Devlin-filed template used across the Web 2.0 case family. (Patexia docket summary; Justia docket)
• Relevant experience: Devlin is the architect of the Web 2.0 Technologies v. campaign itself — he filed the entire wave of near-identical complaints against collaboration/SaaS defendants asserting the same two patents, including the companion D. Del. actions against Zendesk (1:23-cv-00105), Workfront (1:23-cv-00104), Google (1:23-cv-00340), TaskWorld (1:23-cv-00042), Accelo (1:23-cv-00001), Hive Technology (1:23-cv-00002) and Createch Group (1:23-cv-00045). In each, Devlin Law Firm LLC is the recorded plaintiff's firm (e.g., the Zendesk case record lists "Counsel: Timothy Devlin; Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC"). He appears as Patent Owner's counsel in the resulting PTAB proceedings on the same patents as well.

Co-counsel and pro hac vice appearances — NOT CONFIRMED for this case

• No pro hac vice motion by plaintiff's counsel appears on the retrieved docket for 1:23-cv-00107. (By contrast, defendant Mango — d/b/a ClickUp — appeared through Delaware counsel Karen Jacobs and Lucinda Cucuzzella of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, who filed the motion to dismiss (D.I. 10), the Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 12), and the reply (D.I. 14).)
• Attorneys who appear for Web 2.0 in parallel/related matters — e.g., Jason Michael Wejnert (Devlin Law Firm LLC) in Web 2.0 Techs. v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-cv-00230 (N.D. Ill.), and Robert Kiddie / Alan A. Wright in the 2025 Texas Western District filings (Web 2.0 Techs. v. Baylor Scott & White, 6:25-cv-00071; Methodist Hospital Hill Country, 1:25-cv-00292) — are not documented as appearing in the Mango case. I would not list them as counsel here without a docket confirmation.
• No in-house counsel identified. Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC is a patent-assertion entity; no in-house attorney name surfaced.

Caveats and sourcing notes

1. The public docket I could retrieve was incomplete. The Justia docket snapshot was last refreshed February 1, 2023, and the fuller listing available through Patexia ends at the Amended Complaint (D.I. 21, Nov. 6, 2023). Entries after that date — including any pro hac vice motions, substitutions, or notices of appearance — are not reflected in the sources I could access. The case metadata you supplied (status: "motion to dismiss filed; amended complaint") is consistent with that cutoff.
2. "Outcome not confirmed" remains accurate from the sources I reviewed. The companion Zendesk action was resolved (reported as dismissed with prejudice, Dec. 12, 2023, following settlement), but I found no such termination record for the Mango case. Do not assume the Mango action resolved the same way.
3. Patent ownership/party issue is live. Judge Noreika's Oct. 2, 2023 oral order (D.I. 16) questioned why Pennar Software Corporation — the recorded assignee on the face of both asserted patents, U.S. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644 — was omitted as a plaintiff in most of the D. Del. Web 2.0 cases. Devlin's Oct. 4, 2023 letter (D.I. 17) responded, and the Oct. 5, 2023 order (D.I. 18) ruled on the pending motions to dismiss. Whether Pennar was added as a co-plaintiff in the Mango case via the Nov. 6, 2023 amended complaint is not verifiable from the sources retrieved; if Pennar was added, it would be represented by the same Devlin Law Firm team.
4. Verification recommended: A PACER pull of the full docket (or CourtListener RECAP) for 1:23-cv-00107, plus the signature blocks on D.I. 1 and D.I. 21, would definitively confirm whether anyone beyond Timothy Devlin entered an appearance for plaintiff. I could not verify those signature blocks directly.

I'll verify the defense-side appearances and look for any co-counsel or pro hac vice admissions beyond the Delaware local team.

Confirmed the two Morris Nichols filers. Now let me check for pro hac vice admissions and any non-Delaware lead counsel behind the motion.

Found a pro hac vice motion (D.I. 9) naming three Cooley lawyers. Let me confirm each attorney's firm, office, and patent litigation background.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Mango Technologies, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00107-MN

Bottom line

Mango Technologies, Inc. (d/b/a ClickUp) was represented by a two-tier defense team: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as Delaware counsel, and Cooley LLP as substantive/lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice. The Delaware team is confirmed by name on every defendant-side filing; the Cooley team is confirmed by the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance (D.I. 9, filed May 31, 2023), which was so ordered by Judge Noreika the same day. This corrects an open item in the earlier chronology: the unexplained D.I. 9 docket gap is the defendant's PHV motion, and it means there was a pro hac vice appearance in this case — just on the defense side, not the plaintiff's.

---

Counsel identified

Motion-to-dismiss architecture. The D.I. 10 motion itself was filed through Jacobs (Delaware counsel), while the argument — per the identical briefing across the Web 2.0 case family — was a 35 U.S.C. § 101 / Alice eligibility attack on both the '448 and '644 patents. That is Cooley's Mead signature strength (multiple § 101 invalidity judgments), and the staffing pattern (Delaware firm for filing/local rules; Cooley for substance) is the standard D. Del. arrangement.

---

In-house counsel

• No in-house attorney entered an appearance on the accessible docket.
• Howard Baik is reported (MarketScreener executive profile) as a former General Counsel of Mango Technologies, Inc. He does not appear on this docket, and the profile describes the role in the past tense — so if he was GC during this litigation, he did not appear of record, and I cannot establish that he was in the role in 2023. Do not cite him as counsel of record.

---

What is not confirmed

1. Juan Pablo Gonzalez's firm and office. The PHV motion (D.I. 9) names him but the docket text retrieved does not list firms. Confirming would require the PDF of D.I. 9 or a Cooley/state-bar profile.
2. Whether any additional Cooley attorney appeared after Nov. 6, 2023. The retrievable docket — Justia (stale as of Feb. 1, 2023) and Patexia (through D.I. 21, the Amended Complaint) — ends there. Any later notices of appearance, withdrawals, or substitutions are invisible to me. The case metadata's "outcome not confirmed" remains accurate.
3. No sealed filings or sealed appearances were identified; the docket as retrieved shows no sealing order in this action.
4. Whether the Cooley PHV team remained through the end of the case (including any settlement-driven dismissal) is unverified. Note the contrast flagged earlier: the companion Zendesk action reportedly ended in a dismissal with prejudice on Dec. 12, 2023, but no termination entry for Mango appears in the sources retrieved.

---

Sourcing notes and one correction to earlier sections

• Primary docket evidence: Patexia document list for No. 1:23-cv-00107 (shows D.I. 9 PHV motion with "so ordered" entry, D.I. 10 Jacobs filing, D.I. 12 and 14 Cucuzzella filings) and the Justia docket (through Feb. 1, 2023).
• Attorney credentials: Cooley bio for Lowell Mead; Legal 500 / World IP Review Cooley profile naming Mead and Chen on the Mango/ClickUp Nifty defense; Cooley court signature blocks in Corephotonics v. Apple (N.D. Cal.) confirming Mead's Palo Alto address and California bar no. 223989.
• Correction/refinement: the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section listed D.I. 6–9 as an unexplained docket gap and stated there were "no pro hac vice motions" — the latter was correct only as to plaintiff. D.I. 9 is the defendant's PHV motion for Mead, Chen, and Gonzalez, so the D.I. 6–9 gap should be read as at least partially resolved (D.I. 9 = defense PHV motion; likely D.I. 8 = waiver of service or summons returned executed, though that remains unverified).