Web 20 Tech LLC v. Trello Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Trello, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00049, D. Del., 01/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Trello, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Trello online collaboration platform infringes two patents related to methods for managing and sharing information in an online repository and for online document collaboration.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of cloud-based project management and collaboration software, a key segment of the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was put on actual notice of both asserted patents and its alleged infringement via a notice letter dated June 15, 2021, which may serve as the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 - “Online Repository for Personal Information”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency and annoyance for users who must repeatedly enter personal and demographic information into online forms for various websites and services (’448 Patent, col. 1:12-29). It also identifies the lack of a method for a user to store all their information in a single location and selectively authorize its release to different entities (’448 Patent, col. 2:2-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system where a user can store various "information objects" (e.g., contact details, preferences, medical data) on a server. The user can assign distinct security levels to each piece of information, thereby controlling which authorized "requesters" can access specific data. The system is designed to automate the disbursement of this information upon receiving an authorized request. (’448 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described system aimed to provide users with granular, centralized control over their digital information, streamlining online transactions while managing privacy. (’448 Patent, col. 1:30-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 (as corrected) include:
  • A method performed by a server computer for automatically disbursing a first party's personal information to an authorized second party.
  • Establishing an account and assigning an identifier for the first party (user).
  • Receiving and storing the user's personal information as "information objects."
  • Receiving from the user an assignment of security levels to each information object.
  • Storing the user identifier, information objects, and their associated security levels in a database.
  • Receiving a request for information from a second party.
  • Transmitting the requested information to the second party if authorized.
  • Recording the second party's identifier and rejecting the request if the party is not authorized.
• The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 - “Method and System for Online Document Collaboration”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies problems with managing and sharing digital information, noting that downloading files consumes local resources and that bookmarks to online content often become "stale" or invalid over time (’644 Patent, col. 1:40-61). This creates a need for a more robust method of online collaboration.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for online document collaboration where a first user stores a document on a server and defines access restrictions. A second user can request to modify the document, and if their identity and access rights are verified, they are permitted to make changes. The system then receives and stores identifying information about users who approve or disapprove of the modifications, creating an audit trail. (’644 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a framework for auditable, permission-based online collaboration on a single, server-stored document, a core concept for modern collaborative work platforms. (’644 Patent, col. 2:41-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A method performed by a server computer for online document collaboration.
  • Storing a document created by a first user on the server.
  • Associating a set of access restrictions with the document for modification by a group of known users.
  • Receiving a request to modify the document from a second user, which includes the second user's identification.
  • Verifying the identity of the second user.
  • 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 identifying information of the users who approved or disapproved the modifications.
• The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's Trello products and services, including the Trello project management platform, its associated applications, and website (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Trello platform is a visual collaboration tool that uses "boards, lists, and cards" to organize projects and track tasks (Compl. ¶20, screenshot p. 5). A screenshot in the complaint describes Trello as "the visual way for teams to collaborate on any project" (Compl. p. 14).
• The system allows users to create "Workspaces" and invite other users to collaborate on project boards (Compl. ¶23). It provides administrative controls to manage access, including setting up "role based access control" to grant specific permissions to team members (Compl. ¶22, screenshot p. 9).
• The platform tracks user actions through an "Activity Log," which provides "transparency into who is making changes" to a project (Compl. ¶37, screenshot p. 18).
• The complaint alleges Trello is used by a wide range of organizations, from startups to Fortune 500 companies (Compl. p. 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 6,845,448 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether project management data (e.g., tasks, deadlines) constitutes "personal information" as that term is used in the ’448 Patent, which describes examples such as demographic, financial, and health data (col. 7:4-20).
• Technical Questions: A potential point of dispute is whether Trello’s permissioning system, which grants access to entire "Workspaces" or "boards," meets the claim limitation of assigning "security levels to each information object at any granularity," which may suggest a more fine-grained, item-by-item classification scheme.

U.S. Patent 8,117,644 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a Trello "board"—a dynamic container for lists and cards—qualifies as a "document" within the meaning of the ’644 Patent.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether Trello's "Activity Log," which appears to record who made a change (Compl. p. 18), satisfies the specific claim requirement of storing information about users who "approved or disapproved" the modifications. This points to a potential mismatch between the function described in the claim and the function evidenced in the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "personal information" (’448 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for the ’448 Patent depends on construing this term broadly enough to encompass the project-related data managed in Trello, rather than just traditional personally identifiable information (PII).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a lengthy, non-exclusive list of what "personal information" can include, such as "employment-related information" and "personal preferences," which a party could argue covers project data (’448 Patent, col. 7:1-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background focuses on solving the problem of filling out online forms with demographic data, and the examples provided in the specification heavily feature traditional PII like health records and financial data, which may support a narrower construction (’448 Patent, col. 1:12-29; col. 7:4-20).
• Term: "storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications" (’644 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation relies on equating Trello's "Activity Log" with this claimed function. The distinction between logging a modification versus logging an approval/disapproval of that modification is critical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the act of modifying a document implies approval and that the activity log, by recording the modifier's identity, implicitly stores information about who "approved" the change. The patent's abstract describes "receiving approval or disapproval... from one or more users" (’644 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim requires a two-step process: a modification is made, and then one or more users (potentially including the modifier, but also others) separately "approve or disapprove" it, with that second action being logged. The evidence in the complaint, specifically the "Activity Log" screenshot, shows a log of events like "User invitations created or deleted" and "Component updated manually," which appear to be logs of direct actions, not separate approval/disapproval events (’644 Patent, col. 26:14-17; Compl. p. 18).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• While not pled as a separate count, the complaint alleges infringement "jointly" with users and relies on Defendant's user guides and support documentation to describe the functionality of the accused product (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21, 35). These allegations regarding instructional materials may be used to support a theory of induced infringement.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents based on Defendant’s alleged actual knowledge as of a June 15, 2021 notice letter (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 41). The complaint alleges that Defendant continued to infringe after receiving notice, thereby acting knowingly and willfully or with willful blindness to Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 41).

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, seemingly rooted in the context of individual PII, be construed to cover the collaborative project management data stored in Trello? Similarly, can a dynamic Trello "board" be considered a "document" as contemplated by the ’644 Patent?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused "Activity Log" in Trello, which records which user performed an action, perform the specific function of "storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications" as required by Claim 1 of the ’644 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• Finally, the willfulness claim will depend on the substance and timing of pre-suit notice: the court will examine what was communicated in the June 15, 2021 letter and whether Defendant's subsequent conduct meets the standard for willful infringement, particularly in light of the identified scope and technical questions.