DCT

1:25-cv-00619

Intercom Inc v. Disintermediation Services Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00619, D. Del., 05/16/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Intercom alleges venue is proper in Delaware because Defendant DSI is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has directed enforcement activities at Delaware residents, and was a long-time Delaware corporation until shortly before filing a related lawsuit in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its chatbot technology does not infringe four patents asserted by Defendant against one of Plaintiff's customers.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for managing real-time, two-way communications, such as website chatbots, that connect unauthenticated users with company responders across different electronic platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed in response to a lawsuit Defendant filed against Plaintiff's customer, Living Spaces, in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint notes that Defendant sent a demand letter to Living Spaces, and subsequently changed its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas just over three months before filing the Texas case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-09-26 Disintermediation Services, Inc. (DSI) formation date.
2011-10-17 Earliest priority date for all four Patents-in-Suit.
2022-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 issues.
2022-05-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597 issues.
2022-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787 issues.
2023-12-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,855,937 issues.
2024-04-05 DSI sends demand letter to Intercom's customer, Living Spaces.
2024-08-09 Intercom sends responsive letter to DSI.
2024-08-27 DSI changes its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas.
2024-12-13 DSI files infringement lawsuit against Living Spaces in E.D. Texas.
2025-05-16 Intercom files this Declaratory Judgment Complaint in D. Delaware.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 - Two-Way Real Time Communication System 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 that Allows Asymmetric Participation in Conversations Across Multiple Electronic Platforms," issued February 1, 2022. (Compl. ¶29).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Traditional real-time communication (RTC) systems are often not interconnected, requiring parties to use the same protocols (e.g., both on SMS, or both on the same chat software) and for the initiator to know the recipient's contact information beforehand. (’183 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an intermediary system that allows an unauthenticated website visitor (an "initiator") to start a conversation that is routed to one or more "responders." The system can connect the initiator, who is using a web browser, to a responder using a completely different communication channel (e.g., SMS, XMPP, email) without either party needing to know the other's contact details or use the same software. (’183 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-41, col. 4:46-54).
    • Technical Importance: This technology enables businesses to deploy a unified customer communication interface on a website that can be serviced by a distributed team of responders using a variety of personal or professional communication devices. (’183 Patent, col. 4:46-60).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶30).
    • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • An electronic processor configured to receive a request for a web page from an unauthenticated user's web browser.
      • Send a question to the user's browser from a first responder.
      • Receive a first communication (an answer) from the user.
      • Send the first communication to the first responder.
      • Determine a conversation identifier based on the first communication.
      • Identify a second responder based on the first communication.
      • Send the first communication to the second responder using the second responder's specific communication protocol and address.
      • Receive a reply from the second responder and send it to the user's web browser.
    • The complaint notes that dependent claims 3, 5, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 are also asserted against its technology. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597 - Two-Way Real Time Communication System that Allows Asymmetric Participation in Conversations Across Multiple Electronic Platforms

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597, "Two-Way Real Time Communication System that Allows Asymmetric Participation in Conversations Across Multiple Electronic Platforms," issued May 17, 2022. (Compl. ¶41).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’183 Patent, the invention addresses the technical challenge of connecting users on disparate communication platforms for real-time conversations without pre-existing contact information. (’597 Patent, col. 1:60 - col. 2:2).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a server-based system that receives a communication request from a user on a web page and routes it to a "first responder." The system then manages the conversation, determining a conversation identifier based on the user's first message and identifying a second responder to join or take over the conversation, potentially using a different protocol like SMS. (’597 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-41).
    • Technical Importance: This system architecture allows for flexible and scalable customer support solutions where initial contact might be handled by one type of responder (e.g., automated) and then escalated to another (e.g., a human agent on a mobile device). (’597 Patent, col. 5:1-8).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶42).
    • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • An electronic processor configured to receive a communication request from an unauthenticated user's web browser, initiated from a web page.
      • Send a request for information to the user's browser from a first responder.
      • Receive a first communication from the user.
      • Determine a conversation identifier based on the first communication.
      • Identify a second responder based on the first communication.
      • Send the first communication to the second responder.
      • Receive a first reply from the second responder and send it to the user's web browser.
    • The complaint notes that dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, 12, and 15-16 are also asserted against its technology. (Compl. ¶42).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787, "Two-Way Real Time Communication System that Allows Asymmetric Participation in Conversations Across Multiple Electronic Platforms," issued May 31, 2022. (Compl. ¶53).
  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the patents above, the ’787 Patent describes a system for brokering real-time conversations. The system receives a request from a web user, has a "first responder" engage the user, and then identifies and involves a "second responder" based on the user's first communication, managing the interaction across different platforms. (’787 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement for claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 16. (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The accused instrumentality is Intercom's chatbot technology as used on its customer's website. (Compl. ¶54).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,855,937

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,855,937, "Two-Way Real Time Communication System that Allows Asymmetric Participation in Conversations Across Multiple Electronic Platforms," issued December 26, 2023. (Compl. ¶65).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also covers a communication system that acts as an intermediary. It enables an unauthenticated web user to initiate a conversation, which is handled by a "first responder" before being passed to a "second responder," with the system managing the cross-platform routing and conversation mapping. (’937 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement for claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, and 16-17. (Compl. ¶66).
  • Accused Features: The allegations are directed at Intercom's chatbot technology provided to its customers. (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff Intercom's "chatbot technology," which is described as a complete "AI-first customer service platform." (Compl. ¶¶13, 16). The specific implementation at issue is the one licensed to and used by Intercom's customer, Living Spaces, on the www.livingspaces.com website. (Compl. ¶12).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint states that Intercom's technology is used by its customers to "streamline frontline customer support" and incorporates artificial intelligence (AI). (Compl. ¶13). It is provided as a service, where the servers and software that operate the chatbot are controlled by Intercom, not its customers. (Compl. ¶15). Intercom has agreed to indemnify its customer, Living Spaces, for DSI's infringement claims. (Compl. ¶20).
  • Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its allegations detail why Intercom's technology purportedly does not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.

’183 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
send to the web browser from a first responder a question for the unauthenticated user Intercom alleges its technology does not meet this limitation because DSI's infringement theory incorrectly equates a "first responder" with an automated system like a "virtual assistant" or "AI Helper Bot," whereas the patent specification allegedly defines a "first responder" as a human person. ¶¶33-34 col. 6:21-37
determine a conversation identifier for the conversation based on the first communication Intercom alleges that to the extent its technology performs this function, it does not do so after the preceding sequence of steps as required by the claim's structure. ¶32 col. 13:16-18
identify, based on the first communication, a second responder, wherein the second responder is different from the first responder Intercom alleges its AI system is not a "first responder," which raises the question of whether it can identify a "second responder" that is "different from the first responder" in the manner claimed. ¶34 col. 13:20-23

’597 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
send to the web browser from a first responder a request for information for the unauthenticated user Intercom alleges its technology does not meet this limitation because the patent requires a "first responder" to be a human, while its system utilizes an automated AI. ¶¶45-46 col. 6:24-40
determine a conversation identifier for the conversation based on the first communication Intercom alleges that its technology does not perform this step in the sequence claimed, specifically after receiving the request and the user's first communication. ¶44 col. 13:21-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary point of contention appears to be the definition of "first responder." The complaint argues that the patents' specifications distinguish between an automated "virtual assistant" and a "responder," suggesting that the claimed "responder" must be a human. (Compl. ¶34, ¶46). The case may turn on whether this term can be construed to cover the AI systems used in Intercom's chatbot.
    • Technical Questions: A second key issue is the sequence of operations. Intercom argues that its system does not "determine a conversation identifier" after receiving the user's initial communication, as required by a plain reading of the claim steps. (Compl. ¶32, ¶44). This raises a factual question about the precise technical operation of the accused chatbot technology compared to the ordered steps of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "first responder"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of all asserted patents. Its construction is critical because Intercom's primary non-infringement argument is that its accused AI-driven chatbot is an automated system, not a "first responder" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean only a human agent, Intercom's AI-based system may fall outside the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents' summaries and detailed descriptions discuss routing communications to "one or more possible responders" based on various criteria, a process that could be interpreted as including automated agents as potential initial handlers of a request. (’183 Patent, col. 2:19-21, col. 4:61-65).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint points to specification language that appears to distinguish between a "responder" and an automated system. For example, the specification describes a "virtual assistant" that "stalls for time to allow the responders the opportunity to respond." (’183 Patent, col. 6:21-30). This suggests the "responders" are the entities for whom the virtual assistant is stalling, not the assistant itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While this is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, the underlying dispute involves DSI's allegations that Intercom's customer (Living Spaces) infringes by using Intercom's technology. (Compl. ¶8(b)). This posture suggests that the core of the controversy includes whether Intercom is liable for inducing or contributing to its customers' alleged infringement. Intercom's indemnification agreement with Living Spaces further highlights this issue. (Compl. ¶20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint establishes that a live controversy exists, in part, due to DSI's demand letter sent to Living Spaces on April 5, 2024. (Compl. ¶8(b)). This correspondence, along with Intercom's subsequent response, establishes that both parties had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringement allegations, a typical prerequisite for a willfulness claim in the underlying dispute.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "first responder" be construed to cover the automated "AI Helper Bot" or "virtual assistant" in Intercom's accused chatbot technology, or does the patent specification limit this term to a human agent? The patents' own language distinguishing a "virtual assistant" from a "responder" may be central to this determination.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused Intercom system in fact "determine a conversation identifier" based on a user's communication only after that communication is received, as required by the ordered claim limitations? Proving a mismatch in the timing or sequence of technical operations could be a basis for a finding of non-infringement.