DCT
1:23-cv-00105
Web 20 Tech LLC v. Zendesk Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies, Inc. (Texas) and Pennar Software Corporation (Texas)
- Defendant: Zendesk, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00105, D. Del., 08/10/23
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Zendesk, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s customer support and collaboration platforms infringe two patents related to permission-based sharing of personal information and online document collaboration.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of online Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and collaborative software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms, which are central to modern enterprise and customer support operations.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit, any Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history.
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 |
| 2023-08-10 | 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 describes the inefficiency and annoyance faced by internet users who must repeatedly fill out forms with personal and demographic information for various websites. It also notes the problem of users lacking control over their information, which is often collected and held by third parties inaccurately. ('448 Patent, col. 1:12-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized online repository where a user can store various "information objects" (e.g., contact details, preferences, medical history). The user can assign different "security levels" to each piece of information and then authorize third-party "requesters" to access specific, approved portions of their data. The system is designed to manage these permissions, handle requests, and notify designated parties of any changes to the information. ('448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-43).
- Technical Importance: The patent addresses early-web challenges of data portability and user-centric privacy controls, predating many modern identity management and permission-based data sharing frameworks. ('448 Patent, col. 1:43-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 (as corrected) include:
- A method performed by a server computer for disbursing a first party's personal information to a second party.
- Establishing an account for the first party and entering their personal information, which comprises multiple "information objects."
- Receiving from the first party an assignment of security levels to each information object at any granularity, enabling access to selected portions by individual receiving parties.
- Storing the information objects and their assigned security levels.
- Receiving a request for information from a second party.
- Retrieving and transmitting the requested information portion to the second party if authorized.
- If the second party is not authorized, recording the second party's identifier and rejecting the request.
- Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert other claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶30).
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 collaboration in the early 2000s, including the difficulty of sharing documents, the consumption of local storage by downloaded files, and the problem of "stale" bookmarks that point to content that no longer exists. ('644 Patent, col. 1:21-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system for online document collaboration. A first user can store a document (defined broadly to include various digital items) on the server and associate specific access restrictions with it. The system allows a second user to request modification access. If the second user is verified and has the necessary rights, they can modify the document. The system also facilitates a workflow for receiving approval or disapproval of modifications from other users and stores an audit trail of who approved or disapproved the changes. ('644 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-53).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for secure, permission-based collaboration on centralized digital documents, a foundational concept for many modern cloud-based productivity and enterprise software platforms. ('644 Patent, col. 2:42-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A method for online document collaboration performed by a server computer.
- 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.
- 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 users who approved or disapproved the modifications.
- Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert other claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶40).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s collaboration and customer support products, including Zendesk Chat, Zendesk for service, Zendesk for sales, and associated CRM applications (collectively, "the Zendesk Platform") (Compl. ¶21, ¶33).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Zendesk Platform provides tools for online customer service and collaboration. A core feature is a chat application where customers can interact with support agents (Compl. ¶22). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a typical agent-customer chat interface within the Zendesk CRM (Compl. ¶22; p. 6).
- The platform's functionality is allegedly governed by a system of roles and permissions. The complaint alleges an administrator can create roles like "Agent," "Team Lead," or "Analyst" and assign specific permissions to control what information or documents (such as support tickets) those roles can access (Compl. ¶23). A provided screenshot shows the interface for creating these roles and customizing permissions (Compl. ¶23; p. 7).
- The complaint further alleges these permissions can be used to restrict access, for example, by limiting an agent to only see tickets within their assigned group, and that the system denies access to users who lack the required permissions (Compl. ¶35, ¶37).
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... from a server computer | The Zendesk Platform allegedly provides a method for automatically sharing a first party's (e.g., customer's) personal information with a second party (e.g., support agent) from Zendesk's server. | ¶22 | col. 2:22-30 |
| entering the first party's personal information... comprising at least one of a plurality of information objects | A first party using the Zendesk Platform can "include any information, including personal information, on the selected Zendesk app." | ¶22 | col. 7:1-35 |
| receiving, from the first party, assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object at any granularity | The complaint alleges that an administrator sets up "roles" (e.g., Team Lead, Agent) with specific permissions, which functions to control access to information. A screenshot shows a menu for creating roles. | ¶23, p. 8 | col. 14:40-48 |
| receiving a request... from the second party | A second party (e.g., an agent or Team Lead) can request to access the personal information of other parties (e.g., customers or other agents). | ¶22, ¶23 | col. 2:35-38 |
| securely transmitting the retrieved first portion of personal information objects to the second party | The system allegedly shares or transmits the information to the authorized second party if they have sufficient permissions. | ¶22 | col. 2:38-40 |
| if the second party is not authorized to receive the information... rejecting the second party's request for information | The complaint alleges that if a "requesting second party does not have an access level to allow viewing certain personal information... the requesting second party's request for such information is rejected." | ¶25 | col. 14:49-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the role-based access control (RBAC) system for enterprise software, as described in the complaint, is equivalent to the patent's concept of a first party (the user themselves) assigning "security levels" to their own "information objects." The complaint alleges an "administrator" sets up roles, which raises the question of whether this meets the claim limitation of the assignment being received "from the first party."
- Technical Questions: Does the transactional data within a customer support chat log constitute the "online repository for personal information" as contemplated by the patent, which focuses on solving the problem of repetitive form-filling for user profiles?
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 | A first user (e.g., manager or agent) allegedly creates "documents, such as help tickets stored on a server." | ¶35 | col. 1:21-28 |
| associating a set of access restrictions with the document | A first user (manager) allegedly restricts access to tickets, such as by using custom roles to limit agents to specific groups. A screenshot shows instructions for this process. | ¶35, p. 15 | col. 26:1-5 |
| receiving, from a second user, a request to modify the document... [with] identification information | A second user (another agent) with appropriate permissions (group membership) can request access to modify tickets in the Zendesk customer support app. | ¶35 | col. 26:6-10 |
| permitting the second user to modify the document based on a set of access rights | If the second user is "approved as a group member, the second user may modify the Zendesk ticket." | ¶36 | col. 26:13-15 |
| storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications | The complaint alleges the system stores identifying information of users who "disapproved" modifications by "providing Support information that shows denial of access." A screenshot shows an "access denied" message. | ¶37, p. 18 | col. 26:18-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on whether a "help ticket" in a CRM system constitutes a "document" as that term is used in the patent. A court may need to determine if this dynamic, database-driven object is analogous to the patent's examples, such as web pages, news articles, or e-books.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's evidence for the "storing identifying information of... users who... disapproved" limitation is an "access denied" message generated by the system (Compl. p. 18). A key question will be whether a system-generated denial of access is functionally equivalent to the claimed step of "storing identifying information of the one or more users who... disapproved" a modification, which suggests a human-driven approval/disapproval workflow.
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 whether the content exchanged and stored within the Zendesk Platform (e.g., customer support requests, agent-to-agent communications) qualifies as "personal information." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine if the patent applies to enterprise B2B/B2C communication systems or is limited to consumer-focused data profile lockers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive and non-limiting list of what can constitute "personal information," including "employment-related information," "personal preferences," "names of friends and family members," and even "personal web bookmarks," suggesting a very broad scope. ('448 Patent, col. 7:1-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background" section frames the problem primarily in the context of a user repeatedly filling out "demographic and other information" for sites like news outlets and software providers. This could support an argument that the term should be construed more narrowly to mean static, profile-centric data rather than transactional communication data. ('448 Patent, col. 1:16-25).
For the ’644 Patent:
- The Term: "document"
- Context and Importance: The complaint equates a "help ticket" with a "document." The construction of this term is critical because if a "help ticket" is found not to be a "document," the infringement allegation may fail.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a "digital item" (used interchangeably with "document" in the background) in broad terms to include "a web page, data, a document such as a news article, word processor document, spread sheet, presentation, e-book, software programs, music, video, movie, a graphical image," and other similar things. This suggests the term is not limited to traditional text files. ('644 Patent, col. 2:22-29).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples and the problems it aims to solve (e.g., stale bookmarks, downloading files) primarily relate to discrete, self-contained content objects. A party might argue that a "help ticket," as a structured and dynamic entry in a relational database that is continuously updated by multiple inputs, is technologically distinct from the types of "documents" disclosed in the patent's embodiments. ('644 Patent, col. 1:21-62).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directly and jointly (e.g., with its users and customers)" infringed the patents (Compl. ¶21, ¶33). The factual basis appears to be that Zendesk provides the platform and its customers and their users perform certain steps of the claimed methods, such as entering information or creating tickets. The complaint cites to Zendesk's public-facing support articles and blog posts, which could be argued to constitute instructions that induce infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶34).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead any specific facts demonstrating that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the litigation. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding of an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but a basis for willfulness is not explicitly developed in the factual allegations (Compl. p. 19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "document", as disclosed in a patent focused on collaborating on web pages and articles, be construed to cover a structured, database-driven "help ticket" in a modern CRM system? Similarly, does the transactional data within a support platform constitute the "online repository for personal information" contemplated by the '448 patent?
- A second central issue will be one of functional architecture: does the administrator-led, role-based access control (RBAC) system common to enterprise software perform the same function as the patent's concept of a user personally assigning granular "security levels" to their own data?
- A key evidentiary question will concern the mismatch in alleged function: does a system-generated "access denied" message, as alleged in the complaint, satisfy the claim limitation of "storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications," which on its face suggests a human-driven workflow for capturing assent or dissent?