IP Verse

Web 2.0 Technologies, Llc V. Trello, Inc. - 1:23-cv-00344

Explore the details of the Web 2.0 Technologies, Llc V. Trello, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-00344 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:23-cv-00344
Filing Date
Mar 27, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC -
Trello, Inc. -

Patents Involved in the Case

This case involves 2 patents, each of which is central to the dispute. These patents may be subject to claims of infringement, challenges to their validity, or other issues concerning their scope and enforcement.

Application NumberPatent Number
-US8117644B2
-US6845448B2

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Oct 4, 2023Letter to The Honorable Maryellen Noreika from Timothy Devlin regarding Response to Court's Oral Orders. (Devlin, Timothy) (Entered: 10/04/2023)PACER Document
Mar 29, 2023Case Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-00340-UNA et al.(nms)PACER Document
Sep 14, 2023ORAL ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall confer regarding proposed dates in the scheduling order and shall submit a proposed, coordinated order, which is also consistent with the following guidance. The parties shall provide final contentions (i.e., final infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as final non-infringement and validity contentions) around the time that fact discovery closes (i.e., several weeks prior to or after the deadline to complete fact discovery) and at least three weeks before Plaintiff serves its opening claim construction brief. Final contentions shall include a party's contentions under its proposed construction(s), as well as under the opposing construction(s) (if such an alternative contention exists). As such, the parties are encouraged to exchange proposed claim terms and proposed constructions early in the case but in no event later than necessary to allow the parties to include alternative contentions in their final contentions. The joint claim construction chart shall be due one week after the parties have completed their exchange of final contentions, and the joint claim construction brief must be filed at least three weeks before the claim construction hearing. The parties shall leave at least three weeks between the claim construction hearing and the opening of expert discovery. The parties are to use the Court's form scheduling order, which is posted at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov (see Chambers, Judge Noreika, Forms), and the parties must include a proposal for the length and timing of trial. If there are disputes or issues that the Court needs to address in the proposed scheduling order, the parties shall direct the Court to the paragraph numbers in which those appear in a cover letter to the Court. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 9/14/2023. (dlw) (Entered: 09/14/2023)PACER Document
Sep 28, 2023SO ORDERED re 15 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Timothy Chen Saulsbury, Adam R. Brausa, Annie A. Lee filed by Trello, Inc. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 9/28/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
Oct 2, 2023ORAL ORDER - Having reviewed the various Web2.0 Technologies cases filed in this District and beyond, it appears that in certain pending cases with substantially the same infringement allegations, Plaintiff includes as a party Pennar Software Corporation because it is purportedly "the owner by assignment of 100% interest in the Asserted Patents" i.e., U.S. Patent Nos. 6,845,448 and 8,117,644. See, e.g., First Amended Complaint, Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. 37signals LLC d/b/a Basecamp, No. 1:23-0230 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2023); First Amended Complaint, Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. Nulab Inc., No. 1:23-2589 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2023); see also First Amended Complaint, Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 23-0105-MN (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2023). Pennar Software Corporation is also listed as the assignee on the face of these two patents, which are the only patents asserted in any of the Web2.0 Technologies cases in this District. Yet Pennar Software Corporation is not a plaintiff in the cases pending in this District except one (against Zendesk). THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before October 4, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a letter with the Court explaining the discrepancy in plaintiffs among the various cases and indicating whether Pennar Software Corporation is a required plaintiff in all of the related cases pending before this Court. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 10/2/2023. (dlw) (Entered: 10/02/2023)PACER Document