DCT
1:23-cv-00344
Web 20 Tech LLC v. Trello Inc
Key Events
Complaint
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-00344, D. Del., 03/27/2023
- 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 patents related to methods for managing and securely sharing information in a centralized online repository.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns foundational methods for permission-based online collaboration and data sharing, a core component of the modern market for team-based productivity software.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement for both asserted patents via a letter dated June 15, 2021, a fact which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-07 | Priority Date for ’448 and ’644 Patents |
| 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 | Plaintiff Sends Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2023-03-27 | Complaint 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 faced by internet users who must repeatedly enter personal and demographic information into forms on various websites, with no central way to control or update that information once submitted (ʼ448 Patent, col. 1:16-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system where a user (“first party”) can store different types of “personal information” as distinct “information objects” on a server. The user can assign different security levels to each object and then authorize third parties (“requesters” or “second party”) to access only specific, approved portions of that information. The system also supports notifying authorized requesters of any updates made by the user (ʼ448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-48). The overall architecture is depicted in Figure 1 (ʼ448 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a user-centric model for managing online data at a time when information was typically held in separate, provider-controlled silos, addressing a need for a unified method to control and disseminate personal information online (ʼ448 Patent, col. 1:42-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 (as amended by a 2013 Certificate of Correction) include:
- A method, performed by a server, for disbursing a "first party's personal information" to an authorized "second party."
- The method involves establishing an account for the first party and entering their "personal information" comprising multiple "information objects."
- The server receives, from the first party, an "assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object," enabling selective access for receiving parties.
- The server stores the user's identifier, the information objects, and their associated security levels.
- Upon receiving a request from a second party, the server selects, retrieves, and transmits the authorized portion of the information.
- If a second party is not authorized, the server records the second party’s identifier and rejects the request.
- 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, Issued February 14, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings with conventional methods of saving online content, such as web browser bookmarks that can become "stale" if the underlying content is moved or deleted, and the lack of a robust system for controlled, collaborative work on a single document ('644 Patent, col. 1:46-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for online document collaboration where a first user creates and stores a "document" on a server and defines access restrictions. A second user can request to modify the document. If the second user has appropriate access rights, they are permitted to modify it. The system then facilitates "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users" and stores identifying information of the users who took that action ('644 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This system outlines a framework for permission-based, multi-user collaboration and version control on a centrally-stored document, a foundational concept for modern cloud-based office suites and project management tools ('644 Patent, col. 2:10-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method for online document collaboration performed by a server computer.
- The method involves storing a document created by a "first user" and associating it with "a set of access restrictions," including modification ability for a "first group of users."
- The server receives a request to modify the document from a "second user," which includes the second user's identification.
- The server verifies the second user's identity and permits modification based on granted access rights.
- The server receives "approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users."
- The server stores "identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved the modifications."
- The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶42).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the Trello online collaboration platform, including its project management applications and associated features (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 33).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges Trello is a "productivity powerhouse" that provides a visual system of "boards, lists, and cards" for organizing and managing team projects (Compl. p. 5 visual).
- The platform allows a user to create a project board and invite other users to a "Workspace" to view and collaborate on the board's content (Compl. ¶21).
- The complaint alleges Trello provides granular access controls, including "Admin privileges," "role based access control," and the ability to restrict workspace invitations by email domain (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows options to configure these "Advanced permissions" (Compl. p. 8 visual).
- The system allegedly allows a user without membership (a "guest") to request access to a workspace, which an administrator can then approve or deny (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes a screenshot illustrating the "Request Workspace membership as a guest" feature (Compl. p. 16 visual).
- The complaint alleges that an "Activity" tab tracks changes made to project documents by members (Compl. ¶37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’448 Patent 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 authorized by the first party... | Trello provides a method for a first party (e.g., project owner) to automatically share information on a board with an authorized second party (team member). | ¶21 | col. 2:23-28 |
| entering the first party's personal information, said personal information comprising at least one of a plurality of information objects; | A first party includes information, such as tasks and ideas represented by cards, on a Trello project management board. | ¶21 | col. 2:30-33 |
| receiving, from the first party, assignment of at least one of a plurality of security levels to each information object at any granularity... | A project owner sets up "role based access control" and other permissions to control access for team members. | ¶22 | col. 2:33-37 |
| receiving a request, said request comprising at least the first party identifier; | A second party requests and is authorized to view the project board. | ¶21 | col. 2:37-38 |
| 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. | If a requesting second party does not have appropriate permissions, their request for information is rejected. | ¶24 | col. 14:59-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A central question may be whether the term 'personal information' as used in the patent can be construed to cover project management data. The ’448 Patent’s specification heavily emphasizes demographic, financial, and health data for purposes like form-filling, which raises the question of whether the patent's scope is limited to that context or extends to the type of task-oriented data managed in Trello ('448 Patent, col. 7:1-35).
- Technical Question: It is a question for the court whether the continuous access model of a shared workspace like Trello maps to the discrete "request...transmit...reject" steps recited in Claim 1, which may suggest a more transactional, query-based information retrieval process.
’644 Patent 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 Trello user creates and stores documents, such as a project management board, on a server. | ¶35 | col. 25:57-58 |
| associating a set of access restrictions with the document... including an ability to access the document for modification by one of a first group of users... | A project creator assigns different levels of security and access to Trello products, such as restricting access by IP address or setting user roles. A screenshot shows "Control Workspace and board permissions" (Compl. p. 15 visual). | ¶34 | col. 25:59-64 |
| receiving, from a second user, a request to modify the document, wherein said request to modify accompanies the second user's identification information; | A second user (a guest) can request to join a workspace to gain modification rights, which is accompanied by their user information. | ¶35 | col. 26:1-5 |
| permitting the second user to modify the document based on a set of access rights granted to the second user; | If a second user is approved as a member of the workspace, they are permitted to modify the Trello document. The complaint provides a screenshot showing steps for a team member to edit permissions (Compl. p. 17 visual). | ¶36 | col. 26:8-10 |
| receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications from one or more users; and storing identifying information of the one or more users who approved or disapproved... | The complaint alleges that Trello stores identifying information of users who "approved or disapproved the modifications" by providing an "Activity" tab on a member's page that shows changes to project documents. | ¶37 | col. 26:11-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The parties may dispute whether a collaborative, multi-component Trello "board" constitutes a "document" as that term is used in the context of the ’644 patent.
- Technical Question: A key technical question is whether Trello's "Activity" log functionality meets the specific claim limitation of 'receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications'. The complaint’s allegations and supporting visuals show a system for logging who made a change, but do not explicitly show a separate, subsequent step where other users formally approve or disapprove of that specific modification. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the claim requires such a distinct workflow step.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Term (
’448 Patent): "personal information"- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against Trello may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to include any user-generated content (like project tasks) or narrowly to mean personally identifiable information (PII). Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the patent's exemplary embodiments and the accused product's function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the term, referring broadly to "a plurality of information objects" ('448 Patent, col. 2:32).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of 'personal information' in the context of filling out forms, such as demographic, employment, health, biometric, and credit-related data, which may suggest the invention was directed to solving problems related to managing PII ('448 Patent, col. 7:1-35).
- Term (
’644 Patent): "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications"- Context and Importance: This term appears to define a specific, required step in the claimed collaborative process. If Trello's functionality does not include a mechanism for users to provide, and the server to receive, an explicit "approval or disapproval" after a modification is made, the infringement allegation could fail.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the failure of other users to revert a change shown in an activity log constitutes a form of passive "approval" that the server implicitly "receives."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests an active, affirmative step. The claim recites "receiving" an "approval or disapproval," which implies a discrete input from a user that is communicated to the server, rather than a mere logging of an action already taken.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Trello infringes "jointly (e.g., with its users and customers)" and provides user guides and documentation that allegedly instruct on the use of the accused features (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21, 33). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of both asserted patents and their infringement since at least June 15, 2021, the date of a notice letter (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 38). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement has continued since that date, forming the basis for a claim of willful infringement (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, rooted in the specification's context of managing PII for form-filling, be construed broadly enough to encompass the collaborative project and task data managed within the Trello platform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused Trello system perform the specific, two-part workflow of (1) permitting a user to modify a document and then (2) "receiving approval or disapproval for the modifications" from other users, as required by Claim 1 of the ’644 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation where the accused product lacks the second step?
- The case may also turn on a question of proof: what evidence will emerge from discovery to demonstrate that the high-level collaborative functions described in Trello's marketing and user guides perform the precise, multi-step sequences recited in the asserted independent claims of both patents, or will discovery reveal a divergence in their specific technical implementations?