DCT
1:23-cv-00002
Web 20 Tech LLC v. Hive Technology Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Hive Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00002, D. Del., 01/01/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and because alleged acts of infringement have taken place within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hive project management and collaboration software platform infringes patents related to methods for managing and sharing information in an online repository and for online document collaboration.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses foundational aspects of modern cloud-based collaboration software, specifically the controlled storage, access, and modification of shared digital information and documents by multiple users.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the asserted patents and its alleged infringement since at least June 15, 2021, the date it allegedly received a notice letter from the Plaintiff, a fact which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-07 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 |
| 2000-01-07 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 |
| 2005-01-18 | U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 Issues |
| 2012-02-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 Issues |
| 2021-06-15 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-01-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 - Online Repository for Personal Information (Issued Jan. 18, 2005)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiency and annoyance for users who must repeatedly fill out online forms with personal and demographic information across various websites. It also notes the lack of a centralized, user-controlled system for storing and selectively distributing this information to authorized entities. (’448 Patent, col. 1:12-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can store various "information objects" (e.g., contact details, preferences, medical data) in a central online repository. The user can then assign different security levels to each piece of information, granting specific authorized "requesters" permission to access only designated portions of the user's data. The system is designed to automatically handle these authorized requests and notify relevant parties of any updates to the information. (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-42).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provided an early model for a centralized, permission-based digital identity system, giving users granular control over their personal data while streamlining its release to trusted third parties. (’448 Patent, col. 1:33-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶20).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 (as corrected Dec. 31, 2013) include:
- A method for disbursing a first party's personal information to an authorized second party, performed by a server computer.
- Establishing an account and assigning an identifier for the first party.
- Receiving and storing the first party's personal information as "information objects."
- Receiving, from the first party, an assignment of security levels to each information object "at any granularity."
- Receiving a request for information from a second party.
- Selecting, retrieving, and securely transmitting only the authorized portion of the information.
- If the second party is not authorized, recording the second party's identifier and rejecting the request.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 - Method and System for Online Document Collaboration (Issued Feb. 14, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies challenges with online information management, including web bookmarks becoming "stale" when content is moved or deleted, and the need for a system to facilitate controlled sharing and collaboration on digital documents among multiple parties. (’644 Patent, col. 1:46-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user stores a document on a server and associates it with specific access restrictions. Other users can then request to modify the document, and the system facilitates an approval or disapproval workflow for those changes. Crucially, the system stores identifying information of the users who approve or disapprove of the modifications, creating an audit trail of the collaboration process. (’644 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for auditable, asynchronous collaboration on digital assets, establishing a clear record of changes and approvals, which is a key requirement in regulated or enterprise environments. (’644 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶32).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method for online document collaboration performed by a server computer.
- Establishing accounts for multiple users.
- Storing a document created by a first user.
- Associating a set of access restrictions with the document.
- Receiving a request from a second user to modify the document.
- Verifying the second user's identity and permitting modification based on granted access rights.
- Receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users.
- Storing identifying information of the users who approved or disapproved the modifications.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's Hive project management and collaboration products, including features for project management, Hive Notes, Hive Forms, and Hive Messaging. (Compl. ¶¶20, 32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Hive platform is a software-as-a-service offering for team collaboration and project management. (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges that core features allow users to create shared workspaces and projects, store information within them, and control which other users can view or edit that information. (Compl. ¶21). For example, a help article screenshot explains that Hive's private projects are used to "protect certain sensitive information" such as "employee salaries, private client information, or personal projects." (Compl. p. 6).
- Specific functionalities accused of infringement include setting projects as "public" or "private" and assigning user permissions such as "full access" or "read-only." (Compl. ¶¶21-22). A screenshot from a help article illustrates these two permission levels. (Compl. p. 8). The "Hive Notes" feature is described as a "collaborative document" that allows for real-time editing, and the "Action Card History" feature is alleged to function as an audit log of changes made by users. (Compl. p. 11, ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for automatically disbursing a first party's personal information to a second party | The '448 Accused Instrumentalities provide a method for sharing a first party's information with a second party upon request and authorization. | ¶21 | col. 2:24-28 |
| receiving, from the first party, assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object at any granularity | Users can set a project as "public" or "private" and assign other users as "project members" or "non-project members" with "full access" or "read-only" permissions to limit access to information. | ¶¶21-22 | col. 2:32-34 |
| retrieving from the database the selected first portion of personal information objects | The system retrieves project information from a server database to display to an authorized user. | ¶21 | col. 2:38-40 |
| if the second party is not authorized... rejecting the second party's request for information | If a requesting party does not have the required access level, their request for information is rejected. | ¶23 | col. 14:58-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the term "personal information," which the ’448 Patent describes in the context of an individual's demographic, financial, and health data, can be construed to read on the "project information" (e.g., tasks, client data, project goals) stored in the accused Hive platform.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory maps Hive's "public/private" and "read-only/full access" settings to the claim requirement of assigning "security levels to each information object at any granularity." A point of contention may be whether these binary, project-level settings meet the "any granularity" limitation, which the patent specification suggests could be at the "field level." (’448 Patent, col. 9:22-24).
U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing, on the server computer, a document created by a first user | Users create and store documents, such as "Hive Notes," on Hive's servers. A screenshot shows a "Welcome to Hive Notes!" document. (Compl. p. 13). | ¶34 | col. 25:56-57 |
| receiving, from a second user, a request to modify the document | A second user may request to modify a Hive Notes document through options such as "Add new entry," "Apply template," or "Delete." | ¶34 | col. 26:3-5 |
| receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users | The accused system provides for "Proofing and approvals with external approvers," where external users receive an email with a link to view a proof and "approve or require changes." | ¶¶35-36 | col. 26:9-11 |
| storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications | The "Action Card History" feature provides an "audit log of card changes," which the complaint alleges stores identifying information of users who made modifications. (Compl. p. 15). | ¶36 | col. 26:12-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether a "Hive Note" or an "Action Card" in the accused platform qualifies as a "document" as that term is used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications." The complaint's evidence points to a specific feature for "external approvers." (Compl. p. 14). This raises the question of whether this is a standard, infringing mode of operation or an optional feature, and whether routine editing by an internal user with pre-assigned permissions would still meet this claim limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’448 Patent
- The Term: "personal information"
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends on this term being construed broadly enough to cover the "project information" managed by the Hive platform, rather than being limited to an individual's own data profile.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "type of information that can be stored in these tables can be unlimited" and provides long, non-exhaustive lists of examples followed by "and the like." (’448 Patent, col. 7:4-36). This could support an interpretation that covers any information associated with a user or entity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title (Online Repository for Personal Information), abstract, and background consistently frame the invention in the context of an individual's personal data (demographics, preferences, health data) for purposes like auto-filling forms. (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:12-23). This may support a narrower construction limited to data about a person.
For the ’644 Patent
- The Term: "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation relies on Hive's "external approver" feature. The defense may argue that standard editing by a permissioned user does not involve this explicit "approval" step, potentially narrowing the scope of infringing activity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the step broadly as "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users," without limiting it to a specific type of user (e.g., external). (’644 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff may argue this covers any act of accepting or rejecting a change.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a distinct step of "receiving approval" after a "second user" is "permitt[ed] to modify the document." This sequence could suggest a formal, separate workflow step beyond the mere act of saving an edit, which aligns with the "external approver" feature cited in the complaint but may not describe all modification scenarios. (’644 Patent, cl. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant makes, uses, and sells "applications" that infringe, and the willfulness allegations are predicated on Defendant continuing to provide the infringing platform to its users after receiving notice. (Compl. ¶¶20, 28, 32, 40). The complaint cites Defendant's help articles, which may be construed as instructions that induce users to perform the claimed methods. (Compl. pp. 6, 14).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The basis for the allegation is Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a notice letter from Plaintiff on or about June 15, 2021, which allegedly provided actual knowledge of the patents and the infringing activities. (Compl. ¶¶28, 40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "personal information" from the ’448 Patent, rooted in the specification's context of an individual's private data, be construed to cover the collaborative "project information" managed within Defendant's enterprise software?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mapping: does the accused platform's feature for "external approvers" represent the standard, infringing mode of operation for the '644 Patent's collaboration claims, or is it an optional workflow distinct from the primary editing function? The infringement analysis may turn on whether routine modifications by internal, permissioned users satisfy the claim step of "receiving approval or disapproval."
- A third central question will concern the granularity of control: does the accused system's binary "public/private" or "full/read-only" project-level permissions meet the ’448 Patent's requirement for assigning security levels to "each information object at any granularity," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the level of control envisioned by the patent versus that implemented in the product?