Disintermediation Services Inc v. Carvana LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Disintermediation Services, Inc. (Texas)
  • Defendant: Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00771, E.D. Tex., 10/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district, including locations in Plano, Frisco, and Marshall, Texas, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hilton.com online chat system infringes four patents related to systems for managing real-time, cross-platform communications with unauthenticated users.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses managing stateful conversations, such as customer service chats, over the inherently stateless Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) without requiring users to log in or install special software.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in prior litigation involving the same patent family, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss challenging the patents' eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement, including claim charts, on January 5, 2024.

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 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
2024-01-05	Plaintiff allegedly delivers infringement notice to Defendant
2025-10-30	Complaint Filing Date

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 and complaint describe the technical problem of conducting stateful, real-time conversations (like internet chat) over HTTP, which is a "stateless protocol" that does not maintain a history or knowledge of previous connections between a user's browser and a server (Compl. ¶¶34-35). Prior solutions often required users to log in, install specific software, or use browser plugins to establish persistent connections, creating barriers to communication (Compl. ¶¶36-38; ’183 Patent, col. 1:58-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based system that acts as an intermediary to manage conversations with an "unauthenticated user" of a web browser (’183 Patent, Abstract). The server receives a communication, determines a "conversation identifier" to track the specific dialogue, and routes the message to a responder who may be using a different communication protocol (e.g., SMS, XMPP) (’183 Patent, col. 8:58-62). The server then uses this identifier to map the responder's reply back to the correct user's web browser, effectively creating a stateful conversation over a stateless protocol without requiring user authentication (Compl. ¶40).
• Technical Importance: This architecture enables websites to offer seamless, anonymous real-time chat support directly in a browser, which may lower the barrier to user engagement for customer service or sales inquiries (Compl. ¶¶30, 41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶56).
• Claim 1 of the ’183 Patent recites a system 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.
  • Determine a conversation identifier based on the user's communication.
  • End the conversation with the first responder.
  • Identify a second, different responder based on the user's communication.
  • Determine the second responder's communication protocol and address.
  • Send the user's communication to the second responder.
  • Receive a reply from the second responder.
  • Map and send that reply back to the user's web browser using the conversation identifier.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).

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 member of the same patent family, the ’597 Patent addresses the same technical challenge of enabling stateful, real-time communication with unauthenticated browser users over the stateless HTTP protocol (’597 Patent, col. 2:1-9; Compl. ¶32).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is architecturally similar to that of the ’183 Patent, involving a server that uses a conversation identifier to mediate a chat between a browser user and responders on potentially different communication platforms (’597 Patent, Abstract). The claims of the ’597 Patent are structured around a sequence that begins with a "communication request" from the user, which prompts a "request for information" from a first responder (who may be a virtual or automated agent), before identifying a second responder to handle the user's actual communication (’597 Patent, cl. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technical contribution is consistent with the ’183 Patent, focusing on reducing friction in web-based communication by eliminating the need for user logins or specialized software (Compl. ¶40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶56).
• Claim 1 of the ’597 Patent recites a system configured to:
  • Receive a communication request from an unauthenticated user's web browser.
  • Send a request for information from a first responder to the user.
  • Receive a first communication from the user.
  • Determine a conversation identifier based on that communication.
  • Identify a second responder based on the communication.
  • Determine the second responder's communication protocol.
  • Send the user's communication to the second responder.
  • Receive a reply from the second responder.
  • Map and send the reply back to the user's web browser using the conversation identifier.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 11,349,787 - "Two-way real time communication system..."

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, also describes a system for managing chat with unauthenticated browser users. Its claims focus on the use of a "persistent data store" to save associations between the user's communications and the conversation identifier, allowing the system to retrieve the conversation history upon a subsequent request (’787 Patent, cl. 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The Hilton.com chat system is accused of infringing by allegedly storing conversation data on a server and associating it with a user's session to maintain context across interactions (Compl. ¶¶57-58).

U.S. Patent No. 11,855,937 - "Two-way real time communication system..."

• Technology Synopsis: Also from the same family, this patent's claims are directed to a system that determines when to "stop" a conversation with a first responder (e.g., a chatbot) and then "transfer" the stored conversation to a second, different responder (e.g., a human agent) to continue the dialogue (’937 Patent, cl. 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The Hilton.com chat system is accused of infringing by allegedly using a process where a user may first interact with an automated agent before being transferred, with conversation context, to a live agent (Compl. ¶¶57-58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the online chat system available on the Hilton.com website and its associated online travel booking platform (Compl. ¶4, ¶50).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused chat system allows website visitors to engage in real-time conversations for customer service purposes without needing to create an account or provide login credentials (Compl. ¶¶29, 41). The core accused functionality is the system's alleged method of managing these conversations by using a server-side mechanism, which the complaint contends is a "conversation identifier," to map messages between the user's web browser and Hilton's responders, thereby maintaining the conversation's state (Compl. ¶¶40, 45). This system functions as a primary customer interaction point for a major global hospitality company (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that claim charts demonstrating infringement are provided in an incorporated exhibit, but that exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶57). The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that Hilton’s chat system directly infringes the asserted claims by performing each claimed step. Specifically, it is alleged that when a user on Hilton.com initiates a chat, they are an "unauthenticated user" operating a "web browser" (Compl. ¶29). The system allegedly receives their communications, assigns a "conversation identifier" to track the dialogue, and routes messages to and from Hilton's responders (Compl. ¶40). This process is alleged to meet the claim limitations for managing a conversation across a stateless protocol. For the patents involving storing and transferring conversations, the complaint alleges that the Hilton system similarly stores chat history and facilitates handoffs between different responders, such as from an automated agent to a human representative (Compl. ¶58).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the sequence of operations in the Hilton chat system matches the specific order of steps recited in the claims. For example, for the ’183 Patent, does the system first engage with a "first responder," "end the conversation," and then identify a "second responder" in the manner claimed?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the exact technology Hilton uses to maintain chat sessions. A point of contention may be whether Hilton's use of standard web technologies like cookies or session tokens constitutes the claimed "conversation identifier" that is "determine[d]... based on the first communication," or if it is a distinct, non-infringing method of session management.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "unauthenticated user" (’183 Patent, cl. 1; ’597 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: The applicability of the patents hinges on this term. The infringement theory relies on the user not needing to log in. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that the use of browser cookies or other session-tracking technologies means a user is not truly "unauthenticated" with respect to the server.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "unauthenticated" means a user has not been required to provide explicit personal credentials, stating the user does not need to provide "their name, e-mail address, phone number, home address, or any other identifying information" (’183 Patent, col. 5:46-50). This may support an interpretation that a user is "unauthenticated" even if the server uses a cookie to identify the browser session.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. A defendant may argue that any unique, persistent identifier exchanged between the browser and server effectively "authenticates" that specific browser for the duration of the session, distinguishing it from all other users.

• The Term: "conversation identifier" (’183 Patent, cl. 1; ’597 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical mechanism for solving the statelessness problem. Whether Hilton's session management tool meets this definition will be a critical infringement question.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this as a mechanism that "identifies one specific conversation associated with the client" and notes it can be a "randomly generate[d] number," suggesting a broad functional definition could cover various unique session tokens (’183 Patent, col. 8:58-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’183 patent requires the system to "determine a conversation identifier for the conversation based on the first communication." This phrasing could support a narrower reading where the identifier must be created or derived from the initial message itself, rather than being a pre-existing session token assigned before the user sends any communication.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's purported knowledge of the patents since at least January 5, 2024 (Compl. ¶63). The basis for this allegation is a notice package, including claim charts, that Plaintiff's counsel allegedly sent to Hilton's General Counsel (Compl. ¶¶49-51). The complaint further alleges that after receiving this notice, Hilton's counsel responded and engaged in licensing discussions, but Hilton continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶52, ¶64).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "unauthenticated user," as used in the patents, be construed to cover a website visitor whose browser session is tracked by the server using standard web technologies like cookies, even without a formal login?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: does the session management technology employed by the Hilton.com chat system function in the specific manner recited by the claims—particularly the requirement to "determine a conversation identifier... based on the first communication"—or does it represent a technologically distinct approach to solving the same problem?
• A central validity question will be whether the claimed method of using a server-side identifier to manage a conversation with an unauthenticated web user was anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art web application and session management techniques in use before the patents' 2011 priority date.