DCT
1:23-cv-00108
Web 20 Tech LLC v. Freshworks Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Web 2.0 Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Freshworks Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00108, D. Del., 01/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer relationship management (CRM) and support platform infringes patents related to the secure, permission-based management of personal information and collaborative online documents.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms for business operations, specifically for managing customer interactions and data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of both asserted patents since receiving notice from the Plaintiff on or about June 15, 2021, a fact which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-07 | Earliest Priority Date for '448 Patent and '644 Patent |
| 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 | Date of Alleged Notice to Defendant of Infringement |
| 2023-01-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 - “Online Repository for Personal Information”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448, “Online Repository for Personal Information,” issued January 18, 2005.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and annoyance for internet users of repeatedly filling out online forms with personal information for various websites and services. It also notes the lack of a centralized method for users to control, update, and selectively distribute their own information. (’448 Patent, col. 1:12-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for a central online repository where a user can store different types of personal information. The user can assign distinct security levels to individual "information objects" (e.g., contact details, financial data). This allows the user to grant authorized "requesters" access only to specific, pre-approved portions of their data, creating a system of granular, user-controlled information release. (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-43).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a foundational architecture for user-centric data management, predating and anticipating concepts now central to modern federated identity and single sign-on (SSO) systems. (’448 Patent, col. 1:40-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶21).
- As corrected by the Certificate of Correction dated December 31, 2013, the essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A method, performed by a server, for disbursing a first party's personal information to a second party.
- Establishing an account for the first party and assigning an identifier.
- Entering the first party's personal information, which comprises "information objects."
- Receiving from the first party an assignment of "security levels to each information object at any granularity," enabling selective access.
- Storing the first party's identifier, the information object, and its assigned security level in a database.
- 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 information to the second party.
- Obtaining a second party identifier.
- If the second party is not authorized, recording their identifier and rejecting the request.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644 - “Method and System for Online Document Collaboration”
- Patent Identification: 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 challenges with online collaboration, including managing access to documents, sharing them in a controlled manner, and the problem of "stale" bookmarks or links to resources that no longer exist. (’644 Patent, col. 1:46-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system for an "online personal library" where users can store and collaborate on documents. The core of the solution is a multi-layered permission system. A first user creates a document and associates access restrictions that allow a "first group of users" to modify it. The method then details steps for a "second user" to request modification, be verified, and be permitted to modify the document based on their specific access rights. A key feature is the system's ability to receive and store "approval or disapproval" of modifications made to the document. (’644 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-54).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for secure, permission-based online document collaboration, a concept that is foundational to modern cloud-based office suites and enterprise content management systems. (’644 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶42).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A method for online document collaboration performed by a server.
- Establishing accounts for multiple users.
- Storing a "document" created by a first user.
- Associating "access restrictions" with the document, allowing modification by a "first group of users" known to the server.
- Receiving a request from a "second user" to modify the document, which includes the second user's identification.
- Verifying the identity of the second user.
- Permitting the second user to modify the document based on their granted access rights.
- "Receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications" from one or more users.
- Storing identifying information of the user(s) who approved or disapproved of the modifications.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are components of the Freshworks software platform, including "Freshdesk," "Freshsales," "Freshmarketer," "Freshchat," and "Freshservice." (Compl. ¶21, ¶42).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as an integrated, cloud-based platform for businesses to manage marketing, sales, and customer support. (Compl. ¶21). A central feature is a ticketing system where customer issues are tracked as "tickets." (Compl. ¶44). The platform allows administrators to create accounts for agents (users), who can then access and manage customer data and tickets. (Compl. ¶22, ¶43). A key functionality highlighted in the complaint is the ability to set granular, role-based permissions that dictate which users can view, edit, or otherwise interact with specific data objects or tickets. (Compl. ¶25, ¶45). The complaint includes a screenshot from Freshworks' developer API documentation showing a table of agent data fields, such as name, email, and role. (Compl. ¶24, p. 6).
- The complaint alleges the platform is marketed as providing "ridiculously easy-to-use marketing, sales, support and IT solutions," positioning it as a user-friendly, all-in-one business solution. (Compl. ¶21, ¶42).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- '448 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| establishing an account for the first party with the server computer; [and] assigning an identifier to the first party | The Freshworks platform establishes accounts for all users and assigns a unique identifier or "URI" to each user and piece of information. A screenshot shows a "Sign up for free" option. | ¶22, ¶23 | col. 8:20-34 |
| entering the first party's personal information, said personal information comprising at least one of a plurality of information objects | Users enter information such as name, email address, role, and job title, which the complaint frames as "information objects." A screenshot shows a table of available agent API data fields. | ¶24 | col. 8:42-51 |
| receiving, from the first party, assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object at any granularity... | The platform allows administrators to set access permissions and roles (e.g., Agent, Supervisor, Admin), which define what a user can access and what activities they can perform. | ¶25 | col. 9:21-31 |
| storing in the database the first party identifier, the information object and the security level assigned to the information object | The Freshworks database is alleged to store the user's identifier along with their associated permissions and roles (the "security level"). | ¶26 | col. 8:35-41 |
| receiving a request, said request comprising at least the first party identifier | The system receives API requests to view a specific agent's data, using the agent's ID in the request URL (e.g., /api/v2/agents/432). |
¶27 | col. 10:48-64 |
| securely transmitting the retrieved first portion of personal information objects to the second party | In response to an authorized API request, the system transmits the agent's profile information, allegedly using SHA 256 encoding for security. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 10:28-40 |
| if the second party is not authorized to receive the information... recording the second party identifier; and rejecting the second party's request for information | The system checks the requesting party's permissions and returns an error message, such as "PERMISSION_NOT_ALLOWED," if the party is not authorized, thereby rejecting the request. | ¶31, ¶32, ¶33 | col. 14:48-54 |
- '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 accused platform allows multiple users to create accounts to collaborate on the system. A screenshot shows various pricing tiers for different numbers of agents. | ¶43 | col. 12:20-22 |
| storing, on the server computer, a document created by a first user | A user creates a support "Ticket" on the Freshworks server, which the complaint alleges functions as the claimed "document." | ¶44 | col. 12:20-22 |
| associating a set of access restrictions with the document, said access restrictions including an ability to access the document for modification by one of a first group of users | The platform sets access permissions via "Roles" that control which users (the "first group") can access and modify a ticket. A screenshot shows different role definitions, such as "Agent," "Supervisor," and "Admin." | ¶45 | col. 13:20-30 |
| receiving, from a second user, a request to modify the document, wherein said request to modify accompanies the second user's identification information; [and] verifying the identity of the second user | A second user with granted access must log in (verifying identity) and can then request to modify a ticket, for example, by passing their user ID via an API call to modify the ticket's properties. | ¶46, ¶47, ¶48 | col. 13:5-13 |
| permitting the second user to modify the document based on a set of access rights granted to the second user | The platform's customizable permissions permit or deny a user's ability to modify a ticket based on their assigned role and access rights. | ¶49 | col. 26:7-10 |
| receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users | The platform allegedly permits receiving "approval or disapproval" of modifications. The complaint points to functions that allow users to change a ticket's status or properties. | ¶50 | col. 26:10-14 |
| storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications to the document | The platform's "Recent activities" log is alleged to be a revision control system that stores identifying information of users who edited or revised the document, which the complaint equates to approving or disapproving modifications. | ¶51 | col. 26:14-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the '448 Patent is whether an employee's work-related data (e.g., agent name, role) within a corporate CRM system constitutes "personal information" as contemplated by the patent, which describes a repository for a user's own general information. For the '644 Patent, a similar question arises as to whether a structured database record like a customer support "Ticket" qualifies as a "document" under the patent's claims.
- Technical Questions: A significant technical question for the '644 Patent is whether the accused functionality of logging status changes in a workflow (e.g., "Suresh A Krishnan updated the status of Refund... to Awaiting Customer Response," Compl. p. 18) performs the function of "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications" as required by claim 1. The evidence presented shows a log of actions, which raises the question of whether this is technically and legally distinct from a specific step of approving or disapproving a prior change.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "personal information" (’448 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the '448 Patent infringement claim depends on whether data about an employee-agent within a business software platform (e.g., their name, role, assigned tickets) falls within the scope of "personal information." Defendant may argue the patent is limited to a consumer's own private data, not their corporate operational data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive, non-limiting list of what "personal information" can include, such as "employment-related information (employer name, address, job title, job classification, salary range, supervisor's name and phone number, and the like)," which may support Plaintiff's theory. (’448 Patent, col. 7:1-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section frames the problem being solved in the context of a consumer repeatedly filling out forms on public websites like the "New York Times web site" and the "Adobe Corporation web site," which may suggest the intended scope is limited to an individual's general-purpose, non-commercial data. (’448 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
The Term: "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications" (’644 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's evidence does not show an explicit "approve" or "disapprove" button. Instead, it shows a log of status updates. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation hinges on equating a workflow status change with the claimed approval/disapproval step.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define the term, leaving it open to an interpretation where any action that advances or alters a modified document in a workflow could be considered an implicit "approval." The abstract states the system receives "approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users," a broad functional description. (’644 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of "approval or disapproval" suggests a binary choice or a distinct validation step that occurs in response to a modification, rather than the modification itself or a subsequent, different type of edit. The detailed description discusses using the system for a document to be "viewed or approved by others with secure digital signatures," suggesting a more formal and separate approval act than what is evidenced in the complaint. (’644 Patent, col. 4:47-49).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directly and jointly" infringes the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶36, ¶54). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific facts supporting a standalone theory of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations related to user manuals or specific instructions to customers.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful based on its alleged actual knowledge of the '448 and '644 patents "at least since on or about June 15, 2021—the date on which Defendant received notice from Plaintiffs that such activities infringed" the patents. (Compl. ¶20, ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "personal information," as described in the '448 patent's context of a consumer data repository, be construed to cover an employee's operational data within a corporate CRM platform? Similarly, for the '644 patent, does a structured data record like a "Ticket" constitute a "document"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: Does the accused platform's logging of workflow actions, such as updating a ticket's status, perform the specific function of "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications" as required by Claim 1 of the '644 patent, or is there a fundamental difference in the technical operation being performed?