DCT
2:25-cv-00772
Disintermediation Services Inc v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Disintermediation Services, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-772, E.D. Tex., 08/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Goodyear maintains multiple regular and established places of business within the district, including service centers and a manufacturing facility.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website chat system infringes four patents related to managing real-time, anonymous communications between unauthenticated web users and company responders across different platforms.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations of the stateless HTTP protocol to enable persistent chat conversations without requiring users to create accounts or install special software.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent family previously survived a patent eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a separate case in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement, including claim charts, in January 2024, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
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 |
| 2024-01-12 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice package to Defendant |
| 2024-01-17 | Defendant allegedly receives notice package, establishing knowledge |
| 2024-05-16 | N.D. Illinois court denies motion to dismiss related patents on § 101 grounds |
| 2025-02-04 | Plaintiff's counsel follows up with Defendant regarding notice package |
| 2025-08-08 | 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"
- 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. ¶24).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem that at the time of the invention, real-time communication (RTC) systems like internet chat were fragmented; parties often needed to use the same software or protocol, and the initiator had to know the recipient's address. (US-11,240,183 B2, col. 1:57-2:10). The complaint highlights a more specific technical problem: the stateless nature of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) used by web browsers, where a server has no memory of a client’s previous requests, making it difficult to maintain a continuous conversation. (Compl. ¶¶33, 35-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based system that acts as an intermediary between an "initiator" (e.g., a customer using a web browser) and one or more "responders" (e.g., company agents using systems like SMS or XMPP). (’183 Patent, FIG. 1). The server overcomes HTTP's statelessness by creating a unique "conversation identifier" for each chat session, which is used to map all subsequent messages to the correct conversation, allowing for a persistent dialogue without requiring the user to log in or use special software. (Compl. ¶41; ’183 Patent, col. 8:58-64).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled businesses to offer seamless, anonymous web chat support, allowing customers using any standard browser to communicate with representatives using a variety of internal communication tools. (Compl. ¶¶31-32, 42).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, 16, and 17. (Compl. ¶57).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a system with an electronic processor configured to perform a sequence of steps, including:
- Receiving a request from an "unauthenticated user" of a web browser.
- Sending a question from a "first responder" to the user.
- Receiving a first communication (an answer) from the user.
- Determining a "conversation identifier" based on that communication.
- Ending the conversation with the "first responder".
- Identifying a "second responder" based on the user's communication.
- Sending the user's communication to the "second responder" using its specific communication protocol and address.
- Receiving a reply from the "second responder" and mapping it back to the web browser using the "conversation identifier".
- Sending the reply to the web browser without including the "second responder's" communication address.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶61).
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. ¶25).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same core technical challenge as the ’183 Patent: enabling real-time communication between parties who do not share a common communication protocol or software, a problem exacerbated by the stateless nature of web communications. (’597 Patent, col. 1:26-2:10; Compl. ¶¶35-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a similar intermediary server system that connects an unauthenticated web user with a responder. The system identifies a second responder based on the user's initial communication, determines the appropriate protocol for that responder, and forwards the communication. (’597 Patent, col. 13:19-27). It then receives a reply and uses a conversation identifier to map the reply back to the correct web browser session, thereby maintaining a coherent, stateful conversation. (’597 Patent, col. 13:28-34).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for websites to engage visitors in real-time chat without the friction of requiring user registration, logins, or software installation. (Compl. ¶¶40, 42).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 15, and 16. (Compl. ¶57).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system configured to:
- Receive a communication request from 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" for the conversation.
- Identify a "second responder" based on the "first communication".
- Determine the "second responder's" communication protocol.
- Send the "first communication" to the "second responder".
- Receive a "first reply" from the "second responder" and map it to the user's web browser using the "conversation identifier".
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶61).
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. ¶26).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of enabling persistent, real-time communication with an unauthenticated web user. (’787 Patent, col. 1:28-2:10). The solution is a server system that uses a conversation identifier to not only manage the live chat but also to store the conversation in a persistent data store, allowing the user to later send a request and retrieve the conversation history. (’787 Patent, col. 13:21-39).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 are asserted. (Compl. ¶57).
- Accused Features: Goodyear's website chat system is alleged to infringe by using a server-based system to manage and store chat sessions initiated by unauthenticated users. (Compl. ¶¶5, 59).
U.S. Patent No. 11,855,937 - "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms"
- 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. ¶27).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses managing chat with an unauthenticated web user. (’937 Patent, col. 1:26-2:12). The invention specifically claims a system that can determine, based on the content of the conversation, to stop the conversation with a first responder (e.g., a virtual or automated agent) and then identify and transfer the conversation to a different, second responder to continue the session. (’937 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:30-37).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 18 are asserted. (Compl. ¶57).
- Accused Features: Goodyear's chat system is accused of infringing by managing chat sessions with unauthenticated users and transferring those sessions from one type of responder (such as an automated system) to another (such as a live agent). (Compl. ¶¶5, 59).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the "infringing chat system" available on Defendant Goodyear's websites, such as "https://www.goodyear.com/". (Compl. ¶¶5, 51).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Goodyear puts this chat system into service to allow customers and potential customers to communicate with Goodyear representatives in real-time. (Compl. ¶¶4, 59). The system allegedly allows users who are not logged in and have not provided identifying information to initiate and conduct these conversations directly from their web browser. (Compl. ¶¶40, 42). The complaint states that Goodyear controls the system and obtains a benefit from its operation. (Compl. ¶59). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of all asserted claims but incorporates detailed claim charts as an exhibit not provided with the pleading. The analysis below summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.
'183 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receive a request from an unauthenticated user of a web browser for a web page; | The complaint alleges Goodyear's chat system is used by customers who are unauthenticated (i.e., have not provided login credentials). | ¶40 | col. 5:45-54 |
| send to the web browser from a first responder a question for the unauthenticated user... | Goodyear's chat system is alleged to initiate conversations, potentially with an automated or virtual agent ("first responder"), by asking the user questions. | ¶59 | col. 5:29-32 |
| determine a conversation identifier for the conversation based on the first communication; | The complaint alleges the patented technology uses a conversation identifier to map messages, a feature Goodyear's system is accused of using. | ¶41 | col. 8:58-64 |
| end the conversation with the first responder; identify, based on the first communication, a second responder... | Goodyear's system is alleged to transfer conversations from an initial responder (e.g., a bot) to a second, different responder (e.g., a live agent). | ¶59 | col. 13:21-25 |
| send the first communication to the second responder based on the communication address... | The accused system is alleged to route the user's message to the appropriate Goodyear representative over their specific communication channel. | ¶59 | col. 4:1-10 |
| send the first reply to the web browser, wherein the first reply and the first communication do not include the communication address of the second responder. | The accused system allegedly provides responses to the user in the web browser chat window without revealing the internal address of the Goodyear agent. | ¶59 | col. 13:38-40 |
'597 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receive a communication request, from a web browser of an unauthenticated user of a web page... | The complaint alleges Goodyear's chat system is initiated by users who have not provided identifying information or login credentials. | ¶40 | col. 3:10-14 |
| identify, based on the first communication, a second responder... | Goodyear's chat system is alleged to identify and route user inquiries to an appropriate company representative ("second responder"). | ¶59 | col. 13:19-21 |
| determine a communication protocol of the second responder; | The accused system is alleged to manage communications across different protocols between the web user and the Goodyear representative. | ¶59 | col. 4:46-56 |
| map the first reply to the web browser using the conversation identifier; | The complaint's theory relies on the use of a conversation identifier to manage stateless chat sessions, which it accuses Goodyear's system of doing. | ¶41 | col. 13:31-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "first responder" and "second responder" as used in the claims. The infringement theory appears to contemplate a handoff from an automated system to a human agent. The case may turn on whether the accused system's workflow technically meets the claim requirements of "ending" a conversation with a first entity and "identifying" a second, distinct entity.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system performs the claimed functions, but provides limited technical detail on how it does so. A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that Goodyear's system determines and uses a "conversation identifier" in the specific manner claimed, and whether it performs the discrete steps of identifying different responders and their unique communication protocols as required.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "unauthenticated user"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement case. The patents distinguish themselves from prior art that required user logins. (Compl. ¶38). Infringement hinges on whether the users of Goodyear's chat system, who do not formally log in, qualify as "unauthenticated." Practitioners may focus on this term because if Goodyear can demonstrate that its users are "authenticated" in some way (e.g., via persistent cookies that identify returning visitors), it could challenge a core premise of the infringement allegation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges that the patents allow a user to communicate without providing "login credentials" or "identifying information." (Compl. ¶¶40, 42). The specification of the related ’787 Patent states the user is not required to disclose their "name, e-mail address, phone number, home address, or any other identifying information." (’787 Patent, col. 5:51-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that any technology that allows the server to uniquely recognize a user across multiple interactions, such as a tracking cookie, constitutes a form of "authentication" that falls outside the plain meaning of the term, even if it does not involve a password. The specifications do not appear to explicitly address or disclaim such session-tracking technologies.
The Term: "first responder" / "second responder"
Context and Importance: Several asserted independent claims, such as Claim 1 of the ’183 and ’937 patents, require a sequence involving a "first responder" and a "second responder." The definition and the distinction between these two entities are critical for determining whether the accused system's chat transfer or escalation feature infringes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a "responder" can be a human agent or an automated system, referring to a "concierge or virtual assistant" that can ask pre-created questions. (’787 Patent, col. 11:15-18). This may support a broad interpretation where a "first responder" could be a bot and a "second responder" a human.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’183 Patent requires the system to "end the conversation with the first responder" before identifying and sending the communication to the second. This language may support a narrower construction requiring two operationally distinct entities and a discrete termination/initiation sequence, as opposed to a seamless handoff within a single, integrated customer service platform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Goodyear's continued use of the accused chat system after receiving actual notice of the Patents-in-Suit and detailed infringement allegations. (Compl. ¶¶65-66). This notice was allegedly provided via a package delivered to Goodyear's General Counsel on or about January 17, 2024. (Compl. ¶¶50-52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "unauthenticated user," described in the patent as someone not providing login credentials, be construed to cover a website visitor who may be uniquely identified and tracked by the server using persistent browser cookies or other session identifiers?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Goodyear chat system perform the specific, sequential steps required by the claims, such as discretely "ending" a conversation with a "first responder" (e.g., a bot) before "identifying" and routing the communication to a "second responder" (e.g., a human agent), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the system’s workflow and the claimed process?
- A central validity question, informed by the prior §101 ruling, will be whether the patented use of a server-side "conversation identifier" to manage a stateless chat session represented a non-obvious technical improvement over the state of the art for maintaining web session state in 2011, or if it was an obvious application of known techniques.