Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC et al. v. Workzone, LLC
Infringement action filed 27 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 14 Dec 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8117644B2US6845448B1
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00345
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Maryellen Noreika
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Mar 2023 – 14 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 262 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Applications to provide a method for automatically sharing portions of personal information with authorized iusers members via products offered by Workzone, such as Project Management and other workflow applications, on its website www.workzone.com
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
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.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 14 Feb 2012
- Est. expiry
- 7 Jan 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CHAGANTI, NAREN · CHAGANTI, SITAPATHI RAO · CHAGANTI, DAMAYANTI
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Examiner
- LANIER, BENJAMIN
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.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 18 Jan 2005
- Est. expiry
- 7 Jan 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CHAGANTI, NAREN · CHAGANTI, SITAPATHI RAO · CHAGANTI, DAMAYANTI
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Examiner
- DARROW, JUSTIN T.
Parties of record
Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Counsel
- Timothy Devlin
- Firm
- Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Also named
- Pennar Software Corporation
Workzone, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew John Koopman · Benjamin E. Leace · Christopher H. Blaszkowski
- Firm
- Ratner Prestia PC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Timothy Devlin | Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Andrew John Koopman | Workzone, LLC | Defendant |
| Benjamin E. Leace | Workzone, LLC | Defendant |
| Christopher H. Blaszkowski | Workzone, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiffs Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Pennar Software Corporation and Defendant WorkZone, LLC. (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-00345 · D. Del. · closed 14 December 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-00345?
1:23-cv-00345 is a patent infringement action brought by Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC against Workzone, LLC, filed on 27 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 14 December 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00345?
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 Applications to provide a method for automatically sharing portions of personal information with authorized iusers members via products offered by Workzone, such as Project Management and other workflow applications, on its website www.workzone.com.
How was case 1:23-cv-00345 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiffs Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC and Pennar Software Corporation and Defendant WorkZone, LLC. (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-00345 take?
262 calendar days, from filing on 27 Mar 2023 to closure on 14 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00345?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Timothy Devlin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Web 2.0 Technologies. Andrew John Koopman, Benjamin E. Leace and Christopher H. Blaszkowski appear for defendant Workzone.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00345 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.