Disintermediation Services Inc v. Habla Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Disintermediation Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Habla Incorporated (d/b/a Olark) (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Freeborn & Peters LLP
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-12924, E.D. Mich., 12/02/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business, its corporate headquarters, within the Eastern District of Michigan.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Olark live chat software platform infringes three patents related to systems for managing real-time communications between a website user and multiple, potentially anonymous, responders across different communication protocols.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of creating unified, real-time communication channels, such as website-based customer service chat, that can seamlessly connect a user on one platform (e.g., a web browser) with responders on other platforms (e.g., SMS, instant messaging).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents, including infringement claim charts, via correspondence on February 18, 2022, and September 12, 2022. The patents-in-suit are part of a patent family that the complaint notes has been cited in applications by numerous major technology companies.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-10-17	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2011-XX-XX	Plaintiff launched its web chat services
2022-02-01	U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 Issues
2022-02-18	Plaintiff sends first notice letter re: '183 Patent
2022-05-17	U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597 Issues
2022-05-31	U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787 Issues
2022-09-12	Plaintiff sends notice letter re: all Patents-in-Suit
2022-12-02	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. (Compl. ¶35).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes deficiencies in prior art real-time communication (RTC) systems, including the requirements that (1) both parties use a common communication protocol, (2) the initiating party know the recipient's address beforehand, and (3) both parties be identified to each other. (Compl. ¶39; ’183 Patent, col. 1:60-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an intermediary system that manages communications between an initiator on a website and multiple responders who may be using a variety of different RTC methods. The system allows an "intermediary proxy" to handle "message stream convergence and routing," presenting responses to the initiator as a unified conversation while keeping the responder's identity and specific communication protocol hidden. (Compl. ¶¶40-41; ’183 Patent, col. 7:17-19).
• Technical Importance: This architecture enables a single point of contact (like a website chat widget) to connect to a distributed group of responders using disparate technologies, improving the efficiency and flexibility of online support systems. (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶45, 115).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a request from an unauthenticated user of a web browser for a web page.
  • Sending a question from a first responder to the web browser.
  • Receiving a first communication (an answer) from the unauthenticated user.
  • Sending the first communication to the first responder and then ending that conversation.
  • Identifying, based on the first communication, a second, different responder.
  • Determining the communication protocol and address of the second responder.
  • Sending the user's first communication to the second responder.
  • Receiving a first reply from the second responder.
  • Mapping the first reply back to the web browser using a conversation identifier.
  • Sending the first reply to the web browser without including the communication address of the second responder.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶116).

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. ¶63).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '183 Patent, with a "substantially identical" specification, this patent addresses the same problems of protocol-dependency and required user/responder identification in prior art RTC systems. (Compl. ¶64; ’597 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses a similar intermediary server to manage communications between an unauthenticated web user and multiple responders. This patent's claims focus on the system initiating contact, identifying a second responder based on the user's first communication, and forwarding the communication to that second responder based on their specific protocol. (Compl. ¶¶69-70; ’597 Patent, col. 3:12-28).
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a seamless hand-off from an initial point of contact to a more appropriate or specialized second responder without disrupting the user's experience or requiring the user to switch communication platforms. (Compl. ¶71).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶69, 126).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a communication request from a web browser of an unauthenticated user.
  • Sending a request for information from a first responder to the user.
  • Receiving a first communication from the user.
  • Determining a conversation identifier.
  • Identifying, based on the first communication, a second, different responder.
  • Determining a communication protocol of the second responder.
  • Sending the first communication to the second responder based on that protocol.
  • Receiving a first reply from the second responder.
  • Mapping and sending the first reply to the web browser.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶127).

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

• 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. ¶88).
• Technology Synopsis: With a specification that is also substantially identical to the '183 Patent, the invention claimed in the '787 Patent is directed toward providing conversational persistence. (Compl. ¶89). The system stores conversation data in a persistent data store, allowing a user to continue the same conversation even after reloading a webpage or navigating to a different page. (Compl. ¶¶91, 93-94).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶94, 136).
• Accused Features: The accused functionality is the Olark system's ability to store and later retrieve a user's chat history, enabling an "uninterrupted conversational display for a user even across different web pages." (Compl. ¶¶93, 136).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Olark" branded live chat services and products. (Compl. ¶3).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Olark platform provides web-based, real-time communication services. (Compl. ¶3). Based on the infringement allegations for the patents-in-suit, the accused functionality includes the system's architecture for receiving chat requests from website visitors, routing those communications between different responders (such as a chatbot and a human agent), and managing the conversation flow to maintain conversational persistence across web pages, all while masking responder-specific information from the end-user. (Compl. ¶¶45, 69, 94). The complaint does not provide specific details on the accused product's market position beyond alleging that Defendant derives substantial revenue from its infringing acts. (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references and incorporates claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, F) that set forth the infringement allegations for each patent-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶115, 126, 136). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• '183 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Olark system infringes Claim 1 of the ’183 Patent. The infringement theory centers on the Olark system's process for handling a user chat session. This allegedly involves an initial interaction with a "first responder" (e.g., an automated chatbot) which then leads to the identification of a "second responder" (e.g., a human agent) based on the user's input. The system is alleged to manage this handoff seamlessly, routing the conversation to the second responder without revealing their specific communication address or protocol to the user. (Compl. ¶¶45-46, 114-115).
• '597 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Olark system infringes Claim 1 of the ’597 Patent. The narrative infringement theory is similar to that for the '183 patent. It focuses on the Olark system's alleged capability to receive a request from an unauthenticated user, engage them with a first responder, and then, based on that initial communication, identify and route the conversation to a different, second responder using a potentially different communication protocol, all while mapping the conversation to the user's web browser. (Compl. ¶¶69-70, 125-126).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the scope of "unauthenticated user." The question arises whether a website visitor tracked by persistent cookies or other session identifiers, as is common in modern web services, still qualifies as "unauthenticated" under the patent's description, which emphasizes anonymity. (Compl. ¶45; '183 Patent, col. 4:52-54).
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused Olark system performs the specific sequence of steps recited in Claim 1 of the '183 Patent. Specifically, evidence will be needed to show that the system first ends the conversation with the "first responder" before identifying and sending the communication to the "second responder," and that this identification is "based on the first communication." The factual basis for this precise operational flow will be a central point of dispute. (Compl. ¶45).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "unauthenticated user"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the initial limitation of Claim 1 of both the '183 and '597 patents. Its construction is critical because if the accused Olark system is found to perform a level of "authentication" on all users (e.g., via IP address tracking, cookies, or session IDs), it could potentially place its functionality outside the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine the threshold for what constitutes "authentication" in the context of the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes user anonymity, stating the initiator "may remain anonymous to both the system and the responders." ('183 Patent, col. 3:27-29). This could support an interpretation where a user is "unauthenticated" as long as they have not actively logged in or provided explicit personal credentials.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term implies a complete absence of any system-level tracking. The specification contrasts the initiator with "responders" who may provide pre-defined criteria to the system, suggesting a technical distinction between known and unknown entities that could be used to argue for a narrower definition. ('183 Patent, col. 4:32-44).

• The Term: "identify, based on the first communication, a second responder"

• Context and Importance: This element from Claim 1 of the '183 Patent requires a causal link between the user's initial message and the system's selection of the next agent. The dispute will likely center on how "intelligent" or specific this identification must be. Is a simple escalation from a bot to any available human sufficient, or does the claim require selecting a specific human agent based on the content of the message?

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples where responders are selected based on broad criteria like "word-choice in the communication" or "meta-data," which could support an argument that any content-based routing rule meets this limitation. ('183 Patent, col. 5:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the system to "identify... a second responder" (singular). A defendant could argue this implies the selection of a particular, unique agent with specific qualifications matching the user's communication, not merely routing to a general-purpose queue of human agents.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is premised on Defendant having knowledge of the patents from pre-suit notice letters and providing its platform and instructions to customers, which allegedly causes them to infringe. (Compl. ¶¶118, 129, 139). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused aspects of the Olark platform are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶117, 128, 138).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents, based on Defendant's alleged knowledge stemming from the notice letters sent on February 18, 2022, and September 12, 2022. The complaint claims Defendant "acted with disregard" of Plaintiff's patent rights and that a response to these communications was not received. (Compl. ¶¶122-123, 131-133, 141-143).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: does the accused Olark platform's internal logic for escalating a chat from an automated system to a human agent follow the specific, multi-step sequence of operations recited in the asserted independent claims, particularly regarding when and how a "second responder" is identified?
• The case will also turn on a definitional question: can the term "unauthenticated user", which the patent specification links to anonymity, be construed to read on a website visitor who is tracked by the accused system using standard web technologies like cookies or session identifiers?
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: given the absence of detailed technical evidence in the pleading, what specific internal documentation, source code, or expert analysis will the Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused system's back-end processes for routing, mapping, and persisting conversations meet each limitation of the asserted claims?