Disintermediation Services Inc v. Living Spaces Furniture LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Disintermediation Services, Inc. (Texas)
  • Defendant: Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-1045, E.D. Tex., 04/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online chat system infringes four patents related to two-way, real-time communication systems that manage conversations with unauthenticated users across multiple platforms.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates website-based customer service chat by allowing anonymous users on a standard web browser to communicate with company representatives who may be using different communication tools, without requiring logins or special software.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that patents from this same family survived a patent-eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a separate case in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patents and infringement contentions via a notice package sent in April 2024, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-10-17	Priority Date for all 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	Plaintiff sends notice package to Defendant
2024-04-08	Defendant receives notice package
2025-04-02	First Amended Complaint Filed

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of enabling real-time communication (RTC) between parties who are not using the same communication protocols or software (’183 Patent, col. 2:1-5). The complaint frames this problem in the context of a web browser using the stateless HTTP protocol to communicate with a server, which inherently lacks a persistent connection or memory of the conversation (Compl. ¶31, ¶33-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system that acts as an intermediary. The server receives communications from an unauthenticated user of a web browser, assigns a "conversation identifier" to track the dialogue, and routes the messages to a designated "responder" who may be using a different RTC channel, such as SMS ('183 Patent, Abstract). By mapping all messages to the conversation identifier, the server maintains the state of the conversation, bridging the technical gap between the stateless web browser and the responder’s communication platform ('183 Patent, col. 8:51-65; FIG. 3).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to reduce friction in online customer support by allowing a website visitor to initiate a chat instantly without needing to log in, while enabling company agents to respond using a variety of devices and protocols (Compl. ¶29, ¶38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶54).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a request from an "unauthenticated user" of a web browser.
  • A "first responder" sending a question to the user.
  • Receiving a "first communication" (an answer) from the user.
  • Determining a "conversation identifier" based on the communication.
  • "Ending the conversation" with the first responder.
  • Identifying a "second responder" (different from the first) based on the first communication.
  • Determining the "communication protocol" and "address" of the second responder.
  • Sending the user's communication to the second responder.
  • Receiving a reply from the second responder and mapping it back to the user's web browser using the conversation identifier.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶56).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the ’597 Patent addresses the same problem of interconnecting disparate communication systems, specifically between a user on a standard web browser and a responder on a different platform, without requiring common software or authentication ('597 Patent, col. 2:1-9; Compl. ¶31, ¶34).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an intermediary server that manages conversations by creating and using a "conversation identifier" ('597 Patent, col. 4:56-62). This allows the system to receive a request from an unauthenticated web user, identify and route messages to an appropriate responder, and map the reply back to the correct user, thereby creating a coherent conversation across different technical platforms ('597 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The solution enables seamless, real-time customer engagement on websites by removing technical barriers for both the anonymous user and the company representative (Compl. ¶38, ¶40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶54).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a "communication request" from a web browser of an "unauthenticated user".
  • A "first responder" sending a request for information.
  • Receiving a "first communication" from the user.
  • Determining a "conversation identifier" based on the communication.
  • Identifying a "second responder" based on the communication.
  • Determining the "communication protocol" of the second responder.
  • Sending the communication to the second responder.
  • Receiving a reply and mapping it to the user's web browser via the conversation identifier.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶56).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for managing web-based communications by solving the technical problem of maintaining a stateful conversation with an unauthenticated user on a stateless web browser. The invention uses an intermediary server to store conversation data, including requests and responses, associated with a unique conversation identifier, allowing the system to retrieve the conversation history upon request. (’787 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶31, ¶39).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: The online chat system on Defendant's website is accused of infringing by allegedly allowing unauthenticated users to engage in conversations that are managed and routed by a central system (Compl. ¶3, ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 11,855,937 - "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms"

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of handing off a conversation initiated by an anonymous website visitor. The patented solution involves a server that, based on the conversation, determines to stop the conversation with a first responder (e.g., a bot), identifies a second responder, and transfers the conversation to that new responder while maintaining continuity for the user. (’937 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶31, ¶39).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: Defendant's online chat system is accused of infringing by allegedly managing and transferring conversations between different responders while communicating with an unauthenticated website user (Compl. ¶3, ¶49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "online chat system" accessible via a web interface on Defendant's website (Compl. ¶3, ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused system allows website visitors, as unauthenticated users, to engage in real-time chat with Defendant's representatives (Compl. ¶3). The system is alleged to practice the patented inventions by managing these communications between the user's web browser and the company's responders (Compl. ¶49). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the accused system's market position or commercial importance beyond its use on Defendant's commercial website. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all four patents-in-suit but incorporates its detailed infringement contentions by reference to claim charts in an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶55). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's online chat system on its website performs the steps of the asserted claims by allowing an unauthenticated user to initiate a chat, which is then managed, routed, and potentially transferred between responders by Defendant's system (Compl. ¶49). This allegedly constitutes direct and literal infringement of the patented systems and methods (Compl. ¶52).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the interpretation of the "first responder" and "second responder" limitations in claims like claim 1 of the ’183 Patent. The defense may question whether a typical bot-to-human agent handoff in a modern chat platform meets the specific claim requirements of "ending the conversation" with the first and then identifying a "second responder" based on the user's communication.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the accused system performs functions like determining a responder's "communication protocol" and "communication address." A key factual question will be whether the backend of the accused system actually performs these discrete steps, or if it operates as a monolithic platform where such determinations are not explicitly made in the manner claimed. Proving the internal operations of the accused system will be a key evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"unauthenticated user" (’183 Patent, cl. 1; ’597 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patents' asserted advance over prior art that required user logins. The infringement analysis depends on whether visitors to Defendant's chat are considered "unauthenticated." Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused system uses cookies, session identifiers, or other tracking technologies to uniquely identify a user's browser for the duration of a session, the defense may argue the user is not "unauthenticated" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an unauthenticated user is one who is not required to provide explicit identifying information like a "name, e-mail address, phone number, [or] home address" ('183 Patent, col. 5:46-50, as cited in Compl. ¶40). This supports a reading where a user is "unauthenticated" as long as they do not actively log in or provide personal data.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents do not provide an explicit definition. A defendant could argue that the term should be construed in its technical sense, where any system that assigns a unique session ID to a browser is performing a type of authentication to maintain state, even if the user remains anonymous.

"ending the conversation with the first responder" (’183 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This step is a prerequisite for the subsequent identification of a "second responder." Its meaning is critical to the infringement sequence. Practitioners may focus on this term because a simple transfer or handoff within a single, persistent chat session may not constitute "ending" the conversation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system that connects a web user to a pool of responders who may be on entirely different platforms (e.g., SMS, XMPP) ('183 Patent, col. 4:42-48). In this context, handing off from a bot on one system to a human on another could be construed as "ending" the first leg of the communication.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "ending" could imply a complete termination of the communication channel or session with the first responder, rather than a seamless transfer. If the accused system maintains a single session ID and simply re-routes the data stream from a bot to a human agent, a defendant may argue the initial conversation was never truly "ended."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and does not plead separate counts for indirect or induced infringement (Compl. ¶52, ¶54).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶60-61). This allegation is based on a "Living Spaces Notice Package," including claim charts, that Plaintiff sent to Defendant's Associate General Counsel on April 5, 2024, and which was allegedly received on April 8, 2024 (Compl. ¶48-50).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and sequence: Can the multi-step processes recited in the claims, particularly the sequence of engaging a "first responder," "ending the conversation," and transferring to a "second responder," be mapped onto the integrated workflow of a modern e-commerce chat system? The construction of these terms will determine whether a typical bot-to-human handoff falls within the scope of the claims.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Beyond the user-facing interface, the case will depend on what the plaintiff can prove about the internal architecture of the accused chat system. A central dispute will likely be whether the system performs the specific claimed functions of determining distinct communication protocols and addresses for different responders, or if it operates on a unified backend that does not align with the patented method.