DCT

1:22-cv-06539

Disintermediation Services Inc v. Liveadmins LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-06539, N.D. Ill., 03/15/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s incorporation and headquarters being located in Illinois, as well as the commission of substantial acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s web chat services infringe four patents related to systems for managing real-time, asymmetric communications between unauthenticated users and multiple responders across different electronic platforms.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses managing website-based chat sessions, particularly by enabling anonymous users on a web browser to communicate with company agents who may be using disparate communication methods like SMS or proprietary messaging clients.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are all continuations within a single family and claim priority to a 2011 provisional application. The complaint notes that the patents were examined and allowed by the USPTO under the patent eligibility framework of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and that the patent family has been forward-cited in applications by numerous major technology companies.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-01-01 Plaintiff launched its website offering for sale web chat services (approximate date)
2011-10-17 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2022-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 Issue Date
2022-05-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597 Issue Date
2022-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787 Issue Date
2022-08-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466 Issue Date
2023-03-15 Complaint Filing Date

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 (Compl. ¶60).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies deficiencies in prior art communication systems, including the requirements that (1) both parties share a common protocol (e.g., email, SMS, instant messaging), (2) the initiating party know the recipient’s address, and (3) both parties be identified to each other during the conversation (’183 Patent, col. 1:60-67). The complaint also highlights the problem that the stateless nature of HTTP made maintaining a persistent chat session difficult without specialized plugins or local data storage (Compl. ¶¶47, 50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an intermediary system that acts as a proxy to manage communications between an "initiator" (e.g., an unauthenticated website visitor) and one or more "responders" who may be using different communication methods (’183 Patent, col. 3:18-25). The system uses a "conversation identifier" to map messages and maintain the state of a conversation, allowing for what the patent calls "message stream convergence and routing" without requiring the parties to share a protocol or know each other's identifying information (’183 Patent, col. 7:17-19; Compl. ¶53). Figure 1 of the patent depicts a central server (104) connecting an initiator (102) to responders via disparate protocols such as SMS, XMPP, and SIP (108a-c) (’183 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a business to offer seamless real-time support to anonymous website visitors, connecting them with agents on various platforms (e.g., mobile phones, desktops) without requiring the visitor to log in or install special software (Compl. ¶¶58, 68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of representative independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶70, 165).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An electronic processor configured to:
    • receive a request from an "unauthenticated user" of a web browser;
    • send a question from a "first responder" to the user;
    • receive a "first communication" (an answer) from the user;
    • send the "first communication" to the "first responder";
    • determine a "conversation identifier" for the conversation;
    • end the conversation with the "first responder";
    • identify a "second responder" different from the first;
    • determine the "communication protocol" and "address" of the second responder;
    • send the "first communication" to the second responder;
    • receive a "first reply" from the second responder;
    • map the "first reply" to the web browser using the "conversation identifier"; and
    • send the "first reply" to the web browser without including the second responder's communication address.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶166).

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. ¶88).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’183 Patent, this patent addresses the same deficiencies in prior art RTC systems, as described in Section II above (Compl. ¶89, incorporating ¶¶61-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is substantively identical to that of the ’183 Patent, describing an intermediary proxy system for managing communications between unauthenticated users and multiple responders across different protocols (Compl. ¶89). The system architecture allows an initiator to begin a conversation from a web page that is then managed and routed by a central server (’597 Patent, col. 3:36-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the parent ’183 Patent, focused on enabling seamless, anonymous, cross-platform communication (Compl. ¶92).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of representative independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶94, 173).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An electronic processor configured to:
    • receive a "communication request" from a web browser of an "unauthenticated user" of a web page;
    • send a "request for information" from a "first responder" to the user;
    • receive a "first communication" from the user;
    • determine a "conversation identifier";
    • identify a "second responder" different from the first;
    • determine a "communication protocol" of the second responder;
    • send the "first communication" to the second responder;
    • receive a "first reply" from the second responder;
    • map the "first reply" to the web browser using the "conversation identifier"; and
    • send the "first reply" to the web browser.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶174).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787, same title, issued May 31, 2022 (Compl. ¶113).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’183 Patent, this patent addresses the same core technical challenges (Compl. ¶114). The claims of the ’787 Patent are directed to a system that stores conversation elements (e.g., the request for information and the user's first communication) in a "persistent data store" associated with a conversation identifier. This allows the system to retrieve and resend the prior conversation to the user's web browser upon a subsequent request, enabling conversation continuity across multiple webpages or upon a page reload (Compl. ¶¶116-119).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of representative independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶119, 181).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the LiveAdmins web chat service infringes by, among other things, storing and retrieving conversations to provide an uninterrupted display for a user across different web pages (Compl. ¶¶118, 120, 181).

U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,418,466, same title, issued August 16, 2022 (Compl. ¶138).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’787 Patent, this patent also addresses the management of RTC sessions (Compl. ¶139). The claims of the ’466 Patent are directed to a system that enables a single responder to converse in real-time with multiple, different users who are using different "active communication protocols." The system stores associations between communications and conversation identifiers in a persistent data store, allowing it to manage and route messages between the single responder and the various users, thereby eliminating the need for backend systems specific to each protocol (Compl. ¶¶141, 143-144).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of representative independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶144, 189).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the LiveAdmins system infringes by facilitating communication between a responder and multiple users utilizing different communication protocols (Compl. ¶¶145, 147, 189).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "accused instrumentality" is the web chat software and service offered by Defendant LiveAdmins (Compl. ¶¶165, 173, 181, 189).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused instrumentality is a web chat service that facilitates real-time communication between website visitors ("users") and company representatives ("responders") (Compl. ¶¶9-10, 52). The system's alleged functionality includes initiating conversations with unauthenticated users, managing these conversations with identifiers, and potentially handing off conversations between different responders or persisting them across page loads, as detailed in the infringement allegations for each patent (Compl. ¶¶73, 97, 122, 147). Figure 1 of the ’183 Patent, attached as Exhibit A to the complaint, provides a high-level architectural diagram of the type of system at issue, showing a server mediating between a web-based "Initiater" and a "Responder" who can be reached via various back-end protocols ('183 Patent, FIG. 1). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the product's market position beyond general statements that Defendant derives substantial revenue from its infringing acts (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E, F, G, H) that detail the infringement allegations for each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶165, 173, 181, 189).

The narrative infringement theory for the ’183 Patent is that the LiveAdmins system embodies the claimed processor-controlled method. This includes allegedly receiving a request from an unauthenticated web user, sending a question from a first responder (which may be a virtual agent), receiving the user's answer, and then identifying and routing the communication to a different, second responder, all while managing the session with a conversation identifier to maintain a seamless experience for the user (Compl. ¶¶71, 73, 165).

The narrative infringement theory for the ’597 Patent is substantially similar. It alleges the LiveAdmins system receives a request from an unauthenticated user, facilitates a conversation with a first responder, and then identifies a second, different responder to whom communications can be sent, using a conversation identifier to map the replies back to the user's web browser (Compl. ¶¶95, 97, 173).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the scope of the term "unauthenticated user". The patents describe this as a user who does not provide login credentials or personal information and can remain anonymous to the server (’183 Patent, col. 5:46-50). The infringement analysis raises the question of whether the accused system's collection of session data (e.g., cookies, IP addresses) for tracking purposes constitutes a form of "authentication" that would fall outside the claim scope.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’183 and ’597 Patents is whether the accused system actually performs the claimed handoff from a "first responder" to a "second responder" who is "different" from the first. The complaint alleges this multi-responder workflow (Compl. ¶¶73, 97), but the case may turn on evidence of whether the accused product implements this specific functionality or if conversations are handled by a single entity (be it a bot or a human) throughout a session.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "unauthenticated user" (e.g., ’183 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed invention, which is framed as a solution for communicating with anonymous website visitors. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the users of the accused LiveAdmins system are deemed "unauthenticated" as the patent contemplates.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad definition focused on the user's perspective, stating the initiator is "not required to disclose their name, e-mail address, phone number, home address, or any other identifying information" (’183 Patent, col. 5:46-50). This could support a reading where a user is "unauthenticated" so long as they do not perform a traditional login or manually provide personal data.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states the initiator "may remain anonymous to both the system and the responders" (’183 Patent, col. 3:26-28). A defendant might argue that if the accused system uses persistent cookies or other tracking mechanisms to identify a returning visitor, that visitor is no longer truly "anonymous" to the system, and is therefore not an "unauthenticated user" in the context of the patent.

  • The Term: "second responder, wherein the second responder is different from the first responder" (’183 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific two-stage workflow involving a handoff. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement hinges on whether the accused system performs this precise sequence, for example, in a bot-to-human escalation scenario.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes managing communications with "various responders using a variety of RTC communication methods" (’183 Patent, col. 3:19-21). This could support construing "different" broadly to mean any change in the responding agent, even if both are part of the same organization and use the same platform.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "different" implies a more fundamental separation, such as two entities using different underlying communication protocols (e.g., the first responder is an on-platform bot, the second is a human on an external SMS system), consistent with the patent's emphasis on bridging disparate RTC technologies (’183 Patent, FIG. 1). The claim recites separately determining the "communication protocol" of the second responder, which could support a narrower reading requiring a protocol difference.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory infringement by stating LiveAdmins knows the accused system has aspects that are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶167, 175, 183, 191). It alleges inducement by claiming LiveAdmins had knowledge of the patents and, by offering to sell its system, intended for its customers and end users to perform the infringing acts (Compl. ¶¶168, 176, 184, 192).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that LiveAdmins acted with "disregard of Disintermediation's patent rights, without any reasonable basis for doing so" (Compl. ¶¶170, 178, 186, 194). The complaint does not specify facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "unauthenticated user", which the patent links to user anonymity, be construed to read on visitors of a modern web application where session-tracking data like cookies or IP addresses are collected by the server?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused LiveAdmins product actually perform the specific multi-stage and multi-protocol workflows recited in the claims? For instance, what evidence will show that the system facilitates a handoff to a "different" second responder ('183 Patent), stores and retrieves conversations across page loads ('787 Patent), or manages a single agent's communications across disparate user protocols ('466 Patent), as alleged?