DCT

1:23-cv-00086

Disintermediation Services Inc v. Glia Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. Glia Technologies, Inc., 1:23-cv-00086, D. Del., 01/24/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware, which makes it a resident of the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital customer service platform infringes four patents related to systems and methods for managing real-time, multi-protocol communications between anonymous users and multiple responders.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates omnichannel communication, enabling businesses to engage with customers seamlessly across different platforms (e.g., web chat, SMS, email) without requiring shared software or user pre-registration.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement. This includes a letter sent via FedEx on March 2, 2022, identifying the ’183 Patent and its alleged infringement, and a subsequent email to Glia executives on October 12, 2022, identifying all four patents-in-suit and providing associated claim charts. This history is foundational to the complaint's allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-10-17 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2022-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 Issued
2022-03-02 Pre-suit notice letter for ’183 Patent sent to Defendant
2022-05-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597 Issued
2022-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787 Issued
2022-08-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466 Issued
2022-10-12 Pre-suit notice email for all Patents-in-Suit sent to Defendant
2023-01-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 - "Two-way real time communication system (RTC) that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, "Two-way real time communication system (RTC) that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms," issued February 1, 2022 (the "’183 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies deficiencies in prior art real-time communication (RTC) systems, which required: (1) all parties to share a common communication protocol; (2) the initiating party to know the recipient's address before starting a conversation; and (3) both parties to be identified to each other during the communication (’183 Patent, col. 1:60-67; Compl. ¶39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an intermediary system that acts as a proxy to manage communications between a web "initiator" and one or more "responders." This system can handle "message stream convergence and routing" across different RTC protocols (e.g., web-to-SMS), allowing the initiator to see a unified conversation (’183 Patent, col. 3:18-25, col. 7:17-19). The system can operate without the initiator providing a destination address and allows the initiator to remain anonymous to the responders (Compl. ¶40).
  • Technical Importance: This approach lowers the barrier to entry for real-time customer support by allowing users to engage immediately from a website without needing to register, install specific software, or know contact details for support agents (Compl. ¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶140).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include an electronic processor configured to:
    • receive a request for a web page from an "unauthenticated user";
    • send a question from a "first responder" to the user;
    • receive a first communication (an answer) from the user;
    • "end the conversation" with the first responder;
    • identify, based on the first communication, a "second responder" different from the first;
    • determine the protocol and address of the second responder;
    • send the user's first communication to the second responder;
    • receive a reply from the second responder and map it back to the user's web browser using a conversation identifier.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶141).

U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597 - "Two-way real time communication system (RTC) that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597, with the same title, issued May 17, 2022 (the "’597 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’183 Patent, the ’597 Patent addresses the same technical problems of siloed and high-friction communication channels (’597 Patent, col. 1:61-65; Compl. ¶64).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is also an intermediary communication system. The asserted claim in the ’597 Patent differs from that in the ’183 Patent in the initial sequence of events. It describes a system that receives a "communication request" from the user and then sends a "request for information" from a first responder to the user, framing the interaction as being initiated by the responder based on the user's presence, before proceeding with the conversation and potential handoff to a second responder (’597 Patent, col. 13:5-23; Compl. ¶69).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration is relevant to proactive chat systems, where a business initiates contact with a website visitor to offer assistance, while still leveraging the benefits of anonymous, multi-protocol communication (Compl. ¶71).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶151).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include an electronic processor configured to:
    • receive a communication request from an "unauthenticated user";
    • send a "request for information" from a "first responder" to the user;
    • receive a first communication from the user;
    • identify, based on the first communication, a "second responder" different from the first;
    • determine the second responder's protocol;
    • send the first communication to the second responder;
    • receive a reply from the second responder and send it to the user's web browser.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶152).

U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787 - "Two-way real time communication system (RTC) that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms"

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787
    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787, same title, issued May 31, 2022 (the "’787 Patent").
    • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family, this patent focuses on conversation persistence. It describes a system that uses a "persistent data store" to store associations between conversation identifiers and the communications themselves. This allows the system to retrieve and re-display a conversation for a user, providing an "uninterrupted conversational display" even if the user reloads a webpage or navigates to a different page on the same site (Compl. ¶92-¶93, ¶95; ’787 Patent, col. 13:21-41).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶161).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Glia's platform infringes by using a persistent data store to maintain and retrieve user conversations across sessions and different webpages (Compl. ¶160-161).

U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466 - "Two-way real time communication system (RTC) that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms"

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466
    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466, same title, issued August 16, 2022 (the "’466 Patent").
    • Technology Synopsis: This continuation patent claims a system that enables a single responder to manage two separate conversations with two different users, where the users employ "different" active communication protocols. The invention is directed at improving the functioning of the computer system by allowing a single messaging system to support disparate communication protocols, eliminating the need for protocol-specific back-end systems (’466 Patent, col. 13:5-27; Compl. ¶118, ¶120).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶170).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Glia's platform infringes by enabling a single agent (responder) to communicate simultaneously with multiple users across different channels, such as a web-based user and a mobile user (Compl. ¶169-170).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as the digital customer service and omnichannel communication software platform offered by Glia Technologies, Inc. (Compl. ¶9, ¶139).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused platform is used for web chat services that support omnichannel communications (Compl. ¶9). Based on the infringement allegations, the accused functionality includes enabling real-time conversations between website visitors and company agents (responders), managing handoffs between different agents, persisting conversations across web pages, and supporting communication across different protocols (e.g., web chat, SMS). The complaint does not provide specific details on the commercial importance or market position of Glia's platform. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E, F, G, H) that are incorporated by reference but not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶140, ¶151, ¶161, ¶170). As these exhibits are not available for review, this analysis summarizes the infringement theories in prose based on the claim language and narrative allegations.

  • ’183 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the Glia platform infringes claim 1 by operating a system where an unauthenticated website visitor is engaged in a conversation, first with an initial responder (e.g., a chatbot or a first-line agent) before the conversation is handed off to a second, different responder. The system allegedly uses a conversation identifier to manage this transfer seamlessly from the user's perspective, without revealing the second responder's contact address to the user. A central part of this theory is the allegation that the system is configured to "end the conversation with the first responder" before routing the communication to the second responder (Compl. ¶45, ¶139).

  • ’597 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The infringement theory for claim 1 of the ’597 Patent is similar but focuses on a proactive engagement model. It alleges that Glia's platform, upon receiving a request from a user's browser, is configured to have a first responder send a "request for information" to the user, initiating the dialogue. The subsequent steps of receiving the user's communication, identifying a second responder, and transferring the conversation are alleged to track the remaining limitations of the claim (Compl. ¶69, ¶150).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the entities in Glia's system map to the claimed "first responder" and "second responder". For instance, does a handoff from an automated chatbot to a human agent meet the claim limitation of a transfer between two distinct "responders"? Further, the definition of "unauthenticated user" may be contested if Glia's system uses cookies or other session identifiers to track visitors.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’183 Patent will be the meaning of "end the conversation with the first responder." The evidence will need to show a definitive termination with the first entity, not merely a seamless pass-through of context, to meet this limitation as written. For all patents, a factual dispute may arise over how the accused system "identif[ies]" a second responder "based on the first communication," as the complaint lacks specific factual allegations on the mechanism for this intelligent routing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "unauthenticated user" (in asserted claims of ’183, ’597, ’787, ’466 Patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patents' claimed advantage of enabling low-friction communication without requiring user login or registration. The infringement analysis depends on whether visitors to websites using Glia's platform, who may be tracked by session IDs or cookies, qualify as "unauthenticated."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that users are not required to "register or provide any account or user information before starting a conversation," suggesting "unauthenticated" relates to the absence of a formal user account or login procedure (’183 Patent, col. 8:43-46; Compl. ¶43).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states the initiator may remain "anonymous to both the system and the responders" (’183 Patent, col. 3:23-25). A defendant may argue that if the system uses persistent cookies or other means to identify a returning visitor, that user is not truly anonymous or "unauthenticated" by the system.

  • The Term: "end the conversation with the first responder" (’183 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation creates a potential point of non-infringement if the accused system performs a "warm" or seamless handoff rather than a distinct termination and re-initiation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to introduce a specific, and perhaps counterintuitive, technical requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that "end" refers to the termination of the communication link or active process associated with the first responder (e.g., a chatbot script concludes), even if the overarching conversational context is preserved and passed to the second responder.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the plain meaning requires a complete stop. The specification's goal of a seamless user experience where the "conversation with the system continues with minimal disruption" (Compl. ¶48) could be used to argue against an interpretation that requires a hard stop-and-start, suggesting this limitation is not met by a fluid transfer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement for all four patents-in-suit. The allegations state that Defendant knows its platform's features are for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (contributory) and that by selling and marketing its platform, it induces its customers to infringe (induced) (Compl. ¶142-143, ¶153-154, ¶163-164, ¶172-173).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It specifically pleads that on March 2, 2022, Plaintiff sent notice of the ’183 Patent to Defendant, and on October 12, 2022, sent notice via email to Defendant's CEO, CSO, and CTO, identifying all four patents-in-suit and providing claim charts illustrating the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶144-145, ¶155, ¶165, ¶174). The complaint further alleges that Defendant has not responded to these communications, which may be used to argue for objective recklessness (Compl. ¶146, ¶156).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent term "unauthenticated user" be construed to cover modern web visitors tracked by persistent cookies and other session identifiers? Similarly, the case may turn on whether a transfer from an automated chatbot to a human agent satisfies the requirement of a handoff between a "first responder" and a distinct "second responder".

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanics: Without the benefit of the complaint’s claim charts, the central dispute will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the Glia platform’s internal architecture performs the specific, multi-step sequences recited in the claims, particularly the "end the conversation" step of the ’183 Patent, which appears to require more than a simple, fluid transfer of a conversation.

  • A third pivotal question will concern willfulness and damages: Given the complaint’s detailed allegations of pre-suit notice to Defendant’s top executives, including the provision of claim charts, a key focus will be whether Defendant’s continued alleged infringement after receiving such notice was objectively reckless, which could expose Defendant to a risk of enhanced damages if infringement is found.