DCT
1:23-cv-00003
Web 20 Tech LLC v. Liquidplanner Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (Texas) and Pennar Software Corporation (Texas)
- Defendant: LiquidPlanner, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00003, D. Del., 11/06/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and alleged acts of infringement occurring within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s LiquidPlanner online project management software infringes patents related to the secure, permission-based sharing of personal information and online document collaboration.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns cloud-based platforms that allow multiple users to collaboratively manage projects and documents with granular, administrator-defined access controls.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, indicating a shared specification and a direct lineage between the inventions. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-07 | Priority Date for ’448 Patent and ’644 Patent |
| 2005-01-18 | U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 Issued |
| 2012-02-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 Issued |
| 2023-11-06 | First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 - "Online Repository for Personal Information"
- Issued: January 18, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency and annoyance for users who must repeatedly fill out forms with personal and demographic information for various websites, and the lack of a method for a user to store this information in a single location and selectively authorize its distribution (’448 Patent, col. 1:16-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system where a user establishes an account on a server computer, enters various types of personal information, and assigns different security levels to different "information objects." This allows the user to authorize third-party "requesters" to access specific portions of the stored information based on these security levels, while maintaining an audit trail of all accesses (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-42; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to give users centralized control over their digital identity and streamline online transactions by creating a trusted, permission-based intermediary for data sharing.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
- Claim 1 (as corrected Dec. 31, 2013) Elements:
- A method performed by a server computer for automatically disbursing a first party's personal information to an authorized second party.
- The method includes: establishing an account for the first party; assigning an identifier; entering the first party's personal information comprising information objects.
- Receiving, from the first party, an assignment of security levels to each information object to enable access for individual receiving parties.
- Storing the identifier, information objects, and assigned security levels in a database.
- Receiving a request from a second party comprising the first party's identifier.
- In response, selecting a portion of the personal information objects that could be transmitted.
- Retrieving and securely transmitting the selected portion to the second party.
- If the second party is not authorized, obtaining a second party identifier, recording it, and rejecting the request.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶32).
U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 - "Method and System for Online Document Collaboration"
- Issued: February 14, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings with conventional methods of saving online information, such as web page bookmarks becoming "stale" or non-functional, and the lack of a robust system for multiple users to securely collaborate on a single online document (’644 Patent, col. 1:46-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a server-based method for online document collaboration. A first user stores a document and associates a set of access restrictions. A second user can then request to modify the document. The server verifies the second user's identity, permits modification based on the predefined access rights, receives approval or disapproval for the changes, and stores identifying information of the users involved in the modification process (’644 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-49).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for secure, multi-user, asynchronous collaboration on digital documents with auditable, permission-based controls, a foundational concept for modern collaborative work platforms.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A method for online document collaboration performed by a server computer.
- Establishing an account for each of a plurality of users.
- Storing a document created by a first user.
- Associating a set of access restrictions with the document, including an ability to access it for modification by a first group of users whose identities are known to the server.
- Receiving, from a second user, a request to modify the document, which includes 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.
- Receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users.
- Storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's LiquidPlanner online project management software and related products and services offered via its website (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 35).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentalities as a platform for managing projects where a user ("first party") can create projects, include "personal information and/or client information," and share this information with other project members ("second party") (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23). The platform's core functionality relies on a system of role-based permissions, such as "Member Access Levels" and "Restricted Members," which dictate whether a user can view, edit, or access specific project information (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26, 37). The complaint provides a screenshot of a "Member Access Types" chart from LiquidPlanner's support website, which details seven different member types with varying permissions, including "Restricted Member," "Portal Guest," and "Dashboard Guest" (Compl. ¶8). The system is alleged to store user identities and track changes via an "Audit Log" (Compl. ¶41).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’448 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method... comprising... establishing an account for the first party with the server computer; assigning an identifier to the first party | LiquidPlanner provides a method where a first party can use its products by establishing an account. | ¶22 | col. 8:14-30 |
| entering the first party's personal information, said personal information comprising at least one of a plurality of information objects | A first party is permitted to include information, such as personal or client information, into an online project. | ¶23 | col. 8:31-45 |
| receiving, from the first party, assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object... | A project owner can set access levels for project members, such as designating them as a "Restricted Member," which restricts their ability to view or edit certain information. This is shown in a table of "Member Access Types" from Defendant's website. | ¶¶25-26, 8 | col. 9:18-31 |
| receiving a request, said request comprising at least the first party identifier | An authorized second party attempts to view or edit tasks in a project, thereby sending a request to the server. | ¶23 | col. 10:42-56 |
| selecting a first portion of the first party's personal information objects that could be transmitted to a second party | The system selects a portion of the first party's information that can be transmitted based on the second party's permission level. A screenshot shows a "Client View" feature that displays project information. | ¶27, 10 | col. 10:57-col. 11:4 |
| if the second party is not authorized to receive the information... recording the second party identifier; and rejecting the second party's request | If a "Restricted Member" does not have the required access level to view certain personal information, the request is rejected. A chart of "Restricted Member Access Rules" is provided as evidence. | ¶28, 11 | col. 14:49-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A central question may be whether "personal information" as described in the patent (e.g., demographics, health information, travel preferences) can be construed to read on the "client information" and project data managed by the accused system (Compl. ¶23).
- Technical Question: What specific evidence demonstrates that the accused system "select[s] a first portion" of information objects for transmission, as distinct from simply displaying a pre-formatted project view to an authorized user? The complaint alleges this selection occurs (Compl. ¶27), but the mechanism is not detailed.
’644 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| establishing, on the server computer... an account for each of a plurality of users | The system provides for online document collaboration between a LiquidPlanner member and other authorized members. | ¶36 | col. 25:52-54 |
| storing, on the server computer, a document created by a first user | A first user can create and store project information on LiquidPlanner's server computer. | ¶37 | col. 25:55-56 |
| associating a set of access restrictions with the document, said access restrictions including an ability to access the document for modification... | A first user can restrict the use of a board by a group of users, controlling who can view, comment, or edit. The complaint provides a screenshot showing different "Access Level" settings, including "Restricted Member." | ¶37, 14 | col. 25:57-62 |
| verifying the identity of the second user | The identity of a second user requesting access is verified by the server based on the user's name/email address and their assigned "Access Level." | ¶38, 15 | col. 26:5-6 |
| receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users | The complaint alleges that when a user with the appropriate access level makes a change, the user's changes to the shared project "are visible as approved." A screenshot shows a "change history" log. | ¶40, 18 | col. 26:10-14 |
| storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications to the document | The system provides an "Audit Log" that identifies the users who make modifications to a collaborative document. A screenshot of this "Member Access Audit Log" shows a history of user actions. | ¶41, 19 | col. 26:15-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Functional Question: The infringement theory for "receiving approval or disapproval" appears to equate permission-to-edit with post-hoc approval. A key question will be whether the accused system’s function of simply accepting and logging a change from a pre-authorized user meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a separate, subsequent step of another user actively approving or disapproving the specific modification.
- Scope Question: Does a project management plan, composed of tasks, timelines, and assignments, constitute a "document" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which also describes items like news articles, e-books, and images?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Term: personal information (’448 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis for the ’448 Patent. The patent’s specification provides numerous examples of an individual’s personal data. The complaint, however, alleges that business-related "client information" and "project" data fall within its scope (Compl. ¶23). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent can apply to the collaborative enterprise software context of the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "first party's personal information," which is not explicitly limited to an individual. The specification also refers to "user" and "person" generally, which could arguably encompass legal persons or entities.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides extensive examples of "personal information" that are exclusively related to an individual person, such as demographic, health, biometric, and preference data (e.g., "marital status," "medical history," "retina scan," "travel preferences") (’448 Patent, col. 7:4-34). This context suggests the invention was aimed at solving problems for individual consumers, not businesses managing project data.
- Term: receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications (’644 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This claim element appears to require a specific user interaction or system process that may not be explicitly present in the accused system's workflow as described. The complaint alleges this step is met when an authorized user's changes "are visible as approved" (Compl. ¶40). The case may turn on whether this "implicit approval" by the system satisfies the claim language, or if an explicit, separate action is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not specify who must provide the approval or how it must be received. An argument could be made that if the system's pre-set rules (i.e., access rights) permit a change, the system itself has effectively "approved" the modification on behalf of the administrator who set the rules. The claim requires receiving approval from "one or more users," which could be interpreted to mean the user who set the permissions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ordinary meaning of "receiving approval or disapproval" suggests a responsive action that occurs after a modification is proposed or made. The claim structure lists it as a separate step after "permitting the second user to modify the document," which suggests two distinct events. The patent also discusses storing information of users "who approved or disapproved," which may imply an active, logged decision by a person.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant infringed "directly and jointly (e.g., with its users and customers)" (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 35). This phrasing suggests a potential theory of divided infringement, where the actions of LiquidPlanner's users are necessary to perform all steps of the asserted method claims. The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to establish that Defendant directs or controls its users in a manner that would make it liable for their actions under a single-entity theory.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of willful infringement, such as asserting that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The Prayer for Relief includes a request for a finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 but does not plead a basis for willfulness under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶20(c)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "personal information" in the ’448 Patent, which is described in the specification with examples of an individual’s private data, be construed to cover the collaborative business project and client data managed by the accused LiquidPlanner system?
- A second key issue will be functional interpretation: For the ’644 Patent, does the accused system's permission-based model—where a pre-authorized user’s edits are simply logged—satisfy the claim limitation of "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications," or does that language require a distinct, subsequent review and confirmation step that is absent from the accused workflow?
- A third question will concern liability for joint action: Given that the asserted method claims require actions by both the system provider (Defendant) and its end-users, what evidence will be presented to satisfy the legal standard for direct infringement by a single entity, particularly regarding the elements of direction or control over the users' actions?