Web 20 Tech LLC v. Createch Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Createch Group Inc., d/b/a GoodDay (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00045, D. Del., 01/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GoodDay collaborative work management platform infringes two patents related to permission-based sharing of personal information and online document collaboration.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of cloud-based collaborative work management platforms, a market focused on enhancing team productivity and project organization through shared digital workspaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least June 15, 2021. U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, indicating a direct familial relationship between the patents.

Case Timeline

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 describes the inefficiency and annoyance faced by internet users who must repeatedly fill out forms with personal and demographic information for various websites and services (’448 Patent, col. 1:12-32). Existing methods, like credit reporting agencies, are described as often providing incomplete or inaccurate information and not being suited for managing non-financial personal data like preferences or health information (’448 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized online repository where a user ("first party") can store various "information objects" (e.g., contact details, preferences, medical history) and assign different security levels to each object (’448 Patent, col. 2:31-36; col. 7:4-36). This allows the user to grant selective, authorized access to third parties ("second party" or "requesters"), who can then retrieve specific portions of the user's information without the user having to re-enter it each time (’448 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to verify authorization before releasing information (’448 Patent, col. 2:41-43).
• Technical Importance: The technology addresses the foundational challenge of managing digital identity and personal data privacy in an increasingly networked world, proposing a user-centric model for data control. (’448 Patent, col. 1:44-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21). The language below reflects a 2013 Certificate of Correction.
• Independent Claim 1 (as corrected) is a method comprising steps performed by a server computer, including:
  • Establishing an account for a first party and assigning an identifier.
  • Entering the first party's personal information, which comprises a plurality of information objects.
  • Receiving, from the first party, an assignment of one of a plurality of security levels to each information object at any granularity.
  • Storing the first party's identifier, the information object, and its assigned security level.
  • Receiving a request from a second party that includes the first party's identifier.
  • Selecting, retrieving, and securely transmitting a portion of the first party's personal information objects to the second party.
  • Obtaining a second party identifier.
  • If the second party is not authorized, recording its identifier and rejecting the request.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644: Method and System for Online Document Collaboration (Issued Feb. 14, 2012)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’448 patent, this invention extends the concept of controlled information sharing to the context of document collaboration. The background notes the challenges of sharing information in a controlled manner, such as managing access and protecting author rights (’644 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for online document collaboration where a first user can create and store a document, associate it with specific access restrictions, and grant modification rights to a defined group of other users (’644 Patent, Abstract). The system facilitates a workflow where a second user can request to modify the document, with the server verifying the user's identity and permissions before allowing changes. A key feature is the system's ability to receive and store approvals or disapprovals for any modifications made, tracking the identity of the users involved in the review process (’644 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-3:6).
• Technical Importance: The patent addresses the need for structured, permission-based workflows in collaborative environments, particularly for managing revisions and approvals in a multi-user setting. (’644 Patent, col. 3:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method for online document collaboration performed by a server computer, including:
  • Establishing an account for a plurality of users.
  • Storing a document created by a first user.
  • Associating a set of access restrictions with the document, including the ability for a first group of users to modify it.
  • Receiving a request to modify the document from a second user, which includes the second user's identification information.
  • Verifying the second user's identity.
  • Permitting the second user to modify the document based on granted access rights.
  • Receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users.
  • Storing the identifying information of the user(s) who approved or disapproved the modifications.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "modern work management platform" and its constituent features, offered via goodday.work (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 46). These include modules for "Task management," "Planning," "Collaboration," and the creation of "Projects, Tasks, Activities, and/or Documents" (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 48).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused platform as a collaborative digital workspace where users can create accounts to manage projects and tasks (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 49). A central feature is its hierarchical permission system, which allows "Manager" users to assign different roles (e.g., "User," "Guest") and project-level access rights (e.g., "Full," "Standard," "Limited") to other users (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28, 55). This system governs who can view, create, and modify information objects like tasks and documents within the platform (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 57). The platform also includes features for tracking changes to documents and projects over time (Compl. ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a screenshot of the GoodDay "My Account" section, which shows settings for a user's profile, contact information, and time zone (Compl. ¶22).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "personal information," as described in the patent (with examples like demographics, medical history, and travel preferences), can be construed to read on the "work items" (e.g., project tasks, workload) alleged to be stored in the accused platform. The defense may argue that the character of the data is fundamentally different from that contemplated by the patent's specification.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the server to "obtain a second party identifier" and, if unauthorized, "record... and reject" the request. It will be a factual question whether the accused platform’s access denial mechanism performs these specific functions as claimed.

U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 Infringement Allegations

The complaint includes a screenshot of the GoodDay "Project Access" permissions table, illustrating the different capabilities associated with "Full," "Standard," and "Limited" user access levels (Compl. p. 22).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A key point of contention may be whether the accused "Revision History" feature (Compl. ¶61) satisfies the claim limitation of "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications." The complaint's evidence shows a system that tracks who made a change and when. The court may need to determine if this functionality is technically equivalent to a system that actively receives and records a distinct "approval" or "disapproval" input from a user, as the claim language suggests.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448

• The Term: "personal information"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement case depends on whether the work-related data managed by the GoodDay platform (e.g., tasks, project plans) falls within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the patent's examples and the accused functionality.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly limited in the claims. The patent states the type of information "can be unlimited" (ʼ448 Patent, col. 8:36-37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed examples focus exclusively on information traditionally considered personal: demographic, property, health, biometric, credit, and personal preferences like movies and travel (’448 Patent, col. 7:4-36). A party could argue these examples define the intended scope.

U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644

• The Term: "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this active step is central to determining infringement. The dispute may turn on whether passively tracking edits in a version history log is the same as actively receiving a separate approval or disapproval command.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not specify the mechanism for receiving approval. A party could argue that allowing a change to persist in a version history, visible to other users, constitutes a form of implicit or constructive approval that the system "receives."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "receiving approval or disapproval" suggests an explicit action or input from a user (e.g., clicking an "Approve" button), which is distinct from the act of modification itself. The complaint's evidence for this element points to a "Revision History" feature that tracks edits, but does not explicitly show a mechanism for subsequent approval or disapproval (Compl. ¶61, ¶62).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement by Defendant for making, using, and selling the accused platform. While it mentions Defendant acts "in concert and partnership with third parties" (Compl. ¶10), it does not contain separate counts for induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of both the ’448 and ’644 patents and their alleged infringement since at least June 15, 2021, the date of a notice letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 45). This allegation forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement, at least for conduct occurring after that date.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this case may depend on the court’s interpretation of two central issues: one of definitional scope and one of functional operation.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: For the ’448 patent, can the term "personal information," which the patent illustrates with demographic, financial, and health data, be construed to cover the project-related work data managed by the accused platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: For the ’644 patent, does the accused platform's "Revision History" feature, which tracks and stores the identity of users who make edits, perform the specific function of "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications" as required by the claim?