Disintermediation Services Inc v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Disintermediation Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. and Hilton International Holding, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00773, E.D. Tex., 08/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants maintaining regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including numerous hotels and corporate or engineering offices.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the customer chat system on Defendants' Hilton.com online booking platform infringes four patents related to systems for managing real-time, cross-platform communications.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for enabling unauthenticated web browser users to engage in stateful, real-time conversations with service responders who may be using different communication protocols.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case involving the same patent family, a § 101 patent eligibility challenge was rejected at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of the patents and infringement allegations in January 2024, leading to unsuccessful licensing discussions.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-10-17	Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2022-02-01	U.S. Patent 11,240,183 Issued
2022-05-17	U.S. Patent 11,336,597 Issued
2022-05-31	U.S. Patent 11,349,787 Issued
2023-12-26	U.S. Patent 11,855,937 Issued
2024-01-03	Plaintiff sends notice package to Defendant
2024-01-05	Defendant receives notice package
2024-01-22	Parties engage in licensing discussions
2024-05-16	N.D. Ill. court denies § 101 motion to dismiss in related case
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 11,240,183, "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms," issued February 1, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of conducting stateful, real-time conversations (like internet chat) with web browser users, a problem rooted in the inherently "stateless" nature of the HTTP protocol, where a server has no memory of previous interactions with a client (Compl. ¶¶34, 37). Prior art solutions often required users to log in or install special plugins or software, which created barriers for users and privacy concerns (Compl. ¶¶38-39, 45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an intermediary server system that manages communications between an "initiator" (e.g., a website visitor) and one or more "responders" (e.g., customer service agents) (’183 Patent, col. 2:10-29). To overcome the statelessness of HTTP, the system creates and uses a "conversation identifier" to map messages within a single conversation, allowing it to maintain the conversation's state without requiring the user to authenticate or use specialized software (Compl. ¶42; ’183 Patent, col. 8:56-61). The system can route communications across different protocols, such as from a user's web browser to an agent's SMS or XMPP client (’183 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to reduce friction in online customer service by enabling anonymous, real-time chat between website visitors and service agents without requiring common communication software or user registration (Compl. ¶¶32-33, 47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
• Essential elements of independent 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.
  • Determine a "conversation identifier" based on that communication.
  • End the conversation with the first responder.
  • Identify a "second responder" that is "different from the first responder" based on the user's communication.
  • Determine the second responder's communication protocol and address, and send the user's communication to them.
  • Receive a reply from the second responder, map it to the web browser using the conversation identifier, and send it to the user.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 16, and 17, which add limitations related to the first responder's communication address, the timing of the communication, storing the conversation, and identifying the second responder based on content or geolocation (Compl. ¶58; ’183 Patent, col. 13:42-14:41).

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 11,336,597, "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms," issued May 17, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '183 Patent, this patent targets the technical difficulties of enabling persistent, two-way communication with anonymous website visitors over the stateless HTTP protocol (Compl. ¶¶34, 37). The goal is to provide a seamless chat experience without the friction of user logins or special software (Compl. ¶41).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a server-based system that acts as an intermediary for an "unauthenticated user" of a web page (’597 Patent, Claim 1). The system receives a communication request, sends a request for information from a "first responder" to the user, and then identifies a "second responder" based on the user's reply. It uses a "conversation identifier" to manage and map messages between the user's browser and the second responder, who may be using a different communication protocol (’597 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-45).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows businesses to implement low-friction, real-time customer support directly on their websites, engaging with anonymous users who might otherwise be deterred by registration requirements (Compl. ¶¶43, 47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An electronic processor 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" based on the communication.
  • Identify a "second responder" different from the first, based on the user's communication.
  • Send the user's communication to the second responder based on its communication protocol.
  • Receive a reply, determine the conversation identifier from it, map the reply, and send it to the user's web browser.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 15, and 16, adding limitations such as ending the conversation with the first responder, visually distinguishing responders, and identifying the second responder based on content or geolocation (Compl. ¶58; ’597 Patent, col. 13:38-14:26).

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 11,349,787, "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms," issued May 31, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of maintaining and retrieving a persistent conversation with an unauthenticated web browser user over a stateless protocol (Compl. ¶¶34, 41). The solution involves a server system that stores associations between a user's requests, their communications, and a "conversation identifier" in a persistent data store, allowing the conversation to be retrieved later (’787 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: The Hilton.com chat system is accused of infringing by allegedly using a server-based architecture with persistent storage to manage and retrieve chat histories between website users and Hilton representatives (Compl. ¶¶5, 52).

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 11,855,937, "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms," issued December 26, 2023.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses the problem of enabling stateful communication with an unauthenticated web browser user (Compl. ¶¶34, 41). The claimed solution specifically involves a system that, based on the content of a conversation with a "first responder", determines to stop that interaction and "transfer the conversation" to a different, "second responder", using a conversation identifier to maintain state throughout the handoff (’937 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: The Hilton.com chat system is accused of infringing by allegedly managing chat sessions in a way that may involve transferring users between different agents (e.g., from a bot to a human, or between human agents) while maintaining the conversation's context for the user (Compl. ¶¶5, 52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the chat system operating on the Hilton.com online travel booking platform and its associated websites (Compl. ¶¶5, 52).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the chat system functions as a real-time communication tool, enabling website visitors, who are described as "unauthenticated users," to interact with Hilton customer service personnel (Compl. ¶¶9, 41, 43). The system is allegedly put into service by Hilton to facilitate customer inquiries and support for its global portfolio of brands and properties (Compl. ¶¶5-6). The complaint posits that this system operates without requiring the user to log in or install special software, thereby infringing the patents' core concepts (Compl. ¶41).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all four patents-in-suit but refers to claim charts in an external exhibit (Exhibit 15) that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶59). Therefore, the following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the body of the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• '183 and '597 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Hilton.com chat system directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the '183 Patent and Claim 1 of the '597 Patent (Compl. ¶58). The core of the infringement theory is that Hilton's chat system embodies the patented method. This theory suggests that when a visitor on Hilton.com (an "unauthenticated user") starts a chat, they are first engaged by an automated system or initial agent (a "first responder") (Compl. ¶¶41, 47). Based on the user's input (a "first communication"), Hilton's servers allegedly identify an appropriate human agent (a "second responder") and route the conversation accordingly (Compl. ¶52). The system is accused of using a "conversation identifier" to manage the session state and map replies back to the user's web browser, thereby creating a seamless conversation across different internal and external communication systems (Compl. ¶42).
• '787 and '937 Patent Infringement Allegations: The infringement allegations for the '787 and '937 Patents build on the same foundational theory (Compl. ¶¶58-59). For the '787 Patent, the complaint's theory suggests Hilton's system uses a persistent data store to save and retrieve the conversation history using the conversation identifier (Compl. ¶42). For the '937 Patent, the theory suggests Hilton's system performs the claimed step of determining, based on the conversation, to "transfer" the session from a first responder to a second, different responder (Compl. ¶52).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a typical visitor to Hilton.com who initiates a chat qualifies as an "unauthenticated user" as the term is used in the patents. The analysis could turn on whether session tracking via cookies or other means constitutes a form of "authentication" that removes the accused system from the claims' scope. Another question is whether an automated chatbot and a human agent, potentially operating on a single integrated software platform, are considered "different" responders as required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether Hilton's chat system architecture actually performs the multi-step handoff process claimed, particularly the sequence of engaging a first responder, ending that conversation, and then identifying and routing to a second responder. Evidence regarding the system's use of a "conversation identifier" to specifically overcome HTTP statelessness, as opposed to for general session management, will be critical.

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 patents' claimed solution to the problem of engaging anonymous users. Its construction will be critical in defining the universe of infringing interactions. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether interactions with users who are identifiable through cookies, browser fingerprints, or are logged into a loyalty account in the same browser session fall within the claim scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an "unauthenticated user" is one not required to provide explicit "name, e-mail address, phone number, home address, or any other identifying information" to initiate communication, distinguishing it from systems requiring logins (’183 Patent, col. 5:48-54; Compl. ¶43).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states it is possible for an initiator to "begin their inquiry without being required to enter any identifying or qualifying information whatsoever," but also mentions that information can be obtained "based upon the initiators domain" (’183 Patent, col. 5:31-34, col. 6:10-12). A defendant may argue that any server-side mechanism that identifies or tracks the user, even without a formal login, renders the user "authenticated" for the purposes of the claims.

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

• Context and Importance: This claim element describes a specific handoff process. The dispute will likely concern what makes two responders "different." Is a software bot and a human agent using the same platform "different," or are they two components of a single "responder"?

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification distinguishes between a "concierge or virtual assistant" and "live respondents," which may support the view that an automated bot and a human agent are functionally "different" responders (’183 Patent, col. 6:25-28, col. 11:7-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that for two responders to be "different," they must be distinct systems or entities, not merely different operational modes (automated vs. human) within a single, unified customer service software platform.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement by Hilton, which allegedly "operates," "controls," and "puts the infringing chat system into service" (Compl. ¶¶5-6).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that Plaintiff sent a notice package, including claim charts, to Hilton's General Counsel on January 3, 2024, which was received on January 5, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶51, 53, 65). The complaint further alleges that despite this notice and subsequent licensing discussions, Hilton has continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶54, 56, 66).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "unauthenticated user", central to the patents' premise, be construed to cover website visitors who may be identifiable to Hilton's servers through modern web technologies like persistent cookies or browser fingerprinting, even without a formal login?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused Hilton chat system's actual operation map to the specific multi-step process recited in the claims, including the handoff between a "first responder" and a "different" "second responder", or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical architecture?
• A persistent validity question will be one of inventive concept: although surviving an early test in a related case, the patents will face scrutiny over whether using a "conversation identifier" to manage a chat session with a non-logged-in user represents a specific, non-conventional improvement to computer functionality or is an application of the abstract idea of organizing communications using an identifier.