Web 2.0 Technologies

Web 2.0 Technologies a new entrant of non-practicing entities world. It started filing patent litigation cases rapidly. In the span of last 30days, it has filed 15 cases with a strategy of 5 cases with a two weeks span.

Web 2.0 Technologies is asserting the infringement of its two patents US 6,845,448 and US 8,117,644. The inventors of these patents are Naren Chaganti, Sitapati Rao Chaganti and Damayanti Chaganti. The inventor, Naren Chaganti, is an infamous attorney. Sitapati Rao Chaganti and Damayanti Chagnati are parents of Naren Chaganti. The Chaganti family is involved in real estate & lodging business in India. The parents of Naren Chaganti have no prior working experience in the field of electronic information repositories or Database management.

Naren Chaganti has his fair share of limelight with Whispering Oaks. In 2011, United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri issued two subpoenas as a part of a health care fraud investigation to Whispering Oaks Residential Care Facility, LLC and Whispering Oaks RCF Management Company. Both of these companies are of Naren Chaganti. Further, because of his unlawful activities, he had been indefinitely suspended from Missouri Bar and later suspension was changed to a year.

In truth, the patents of Web 2.0 Technologies are not invented patents but manufactured patents. The patent ‘644 which was filed on May 5, 2010, has a quite interesting prosecution history. Throughout the prosecution phase, by all means, Naren wanted to take priority from the prior applications 09/478,796 and 09/634,725. Following arguments are just an example of Chaganti’s efforts –

“5. The disclosure of the '725 application does not provide adequate support for the claimed storing of a document, modifications made to document by a second user, and the identity of the second user. The '725 application discusses allowing a requesting user to modify documents stored in the online library and providing notifications that the document has been modified (Claims 15-20). However, the disclosure is silent with respect to storing the identity of the user who modified the document.

6. Therefore, claims 1-14 are not entitled to the benefit of prior application 09/478,796, and claims 15-20 are not entitle[d] to the benefit of prior application 09/478,796 and 09/634,725.”

“Mr. Chaganti discussed the priority documents and how he believed they provided adequate support for the claim language. Examiner stated that the citations discussed did not clearly support the claim requirement for storing the identifier of the user that performs a document modification, wherein the identifier is stored along with the document and the document modification.”

“Mr. Chaganti discussed where he believed support for the limitations in question existed in the priority publications. Examiner explained why the priority publications were not sufficient to support the claim limitations in question. Mr. Chaganti discussed claim amendments to remove the limitations in an effort to receive the date.”

“Mr. Chaganti discussed the prior art and how he believed the claims were distinguishable. Examiner explained how the combination of references was being used to reject the claims. Examiner suggested amending the claims to add more detail with respect to the transmission of content from one server to another. No specific language was agreed upon.”

US 6,845,448, which was filed on January 7, 2000, is also a very simple patent of a social network where a user can check additional information of another user profile after getting its approval. Late 1990 was a peak time of social networking services where multiple players were giving user profile options also.

Overall, the patents of Web 2.0 Technologies are of very low quality and from the people who were not actively working in the relevant domain.