Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Web 2.0 Technologies v. TaskWorld | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00042

Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. TaskWorld, Inc.

1:23-cv-00042 D. Del. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 27 Oct 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US8117644B2US6845448B1
Case no.
1:23-cv-00042
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Maryellen Noreika
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
13 Jan 2023 – 27 Oct 2023
Duration
287 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Method and system for online document collaboration · Online repository for personal information
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00042, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8117644B2 Inactive App. US12/799945

Method and system for online document collaboration

A method and system for online document collaboration includes the steps of establishing on a server computer coupled to the Internet an account for each of a plurality of users; storing on the server computer a document created by a first user; associating a set of access restrictions with the document, said access restrictions including an ability to access the document for modification by one of a first group of users, said first group of users being users whose identities are known to the server computer; receiving, from a second user, a request to modify the document, wherein said request to modify accompanies the second user’s identification information; verifying the identity of the second user; permitting the second user to modify the document based on a set of access rights granted to the second user; receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users; and storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications to the document. In alternative embodiments, the method further includes the step(s) of storing the modified document, storing the identity of the user who modified the document, notifying one or more members of a group if the document is modified or transmitting the modified document to one or more members of a group.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
14 Feb 2012
Est. expiry
7 Jan 2020
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L29/06H04L29/08
Examiner
LANIER, BENJAMIN
US8117644B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8117644B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US6845448B1 Inactive App. US09/478796

Online repository for personal information

Method and system for gathering, storing personal information on a server computer and releasing such information to authorized requesters. Several types of information are stored for release to different entities with appropriate authorization. Any modifications or updates are automatically notified to any authorized requesters. The requester optionally provides information about to whom and where to notify changes or updates. Such change or update notification is made by sending a notification to an electronic mailbox. A frequent unauthorized requester of information is tagged as “junk” requester, to whom no further information will be released.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
18 Jan 2005
Est. expiry
7 Jan 2020
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L29/06H04L29/08
Examiner
DARROW, JUSTIN T.
US6845448B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6845448B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Defendant Taskworld, Inc. (collectively, “the Parties”) have agreed to dismiss the claims, counterclaims and causes of action between them. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the Parties, that the within action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 1:23-cv-00042 · D. Del. · closed 27 October 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:23-cv-00042?

1:23-cv-00042 is a patent infringement action brought by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC against TaskWorld, Inc., filed on 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 27 October 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00042?

US8117644B2 (“Method and system for online document collaboration”), assigned to WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive; US6845448B1 (“Online repository for personal information”), assigned to WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method and system for online document collaboration and Online repository for personal information.

How was case 1:23-cv-00042 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Defendant Taskworld, Inc. (collectively, “the Parties”) have agreed to dismiss the claims, counterclaims and causes of action between them. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the Parties, that the within action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 1:23-cv-00042 take?

287 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2023 to closure on 27 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00042?

Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Timothy Devlin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies. Adam Wyatt Poff and Alexis Stombaugh appear for defendant TaskWorld.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00042 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00042 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.