Disintermedation Services Inc. v. AT&T Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Disintermedation Services Inc. v. AT&T Inc.
Case No. 2:25-cv-00773, E.D. Texas

This patent infringement suit features a patent assertion entity (PAE), Disintermedation Services Inc., targeting a major operating company, AT&T Inc. The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services, does not appear to produce goods or services but owns and asserts patents across the technology sector. This is part of a broader litigation campaign where the same patent has been asserted against numerous other companies. The defendant, AT&T, is one of the world's largest telecommunications companies, providing a vast array of services including mobile and fixed-line telephony, broadband internet, and digital television. This pattern of a PAE suing a large, product-producing company is a common feature of the modern patent litigation landscape.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." The technology generally relates to systems that manage web-based, real-time conversations between users and responders. While the specific complaint is not publicly available, the alleged infringement likely targets AT&T's customer-facing communication platforms. This could include the live chat functions on its websites for sales and customer support, services like "AT&T Connect" for video conferencing, or its "Customer Journey Orchestration" platforms, which manage real-time, omnichannel communications with customers.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, particularly PAEs, for its experienced judiciary and case management procedures that can be favorable to patent holders. Reports on litigation trends confirm that the Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Rodney Gilstrap who presides over a significant portion of the nation's patent docket, remains a top venue for patent cases. The case's notability stems from several factors: it is part of a multi-defendant assertion campaign by a PAE; it targets a core functionality (real-time customer communication) of a major telecommunications provider; and its venue is at the epicenter of U.S. patent litigation. Further highlighting the contentious nature of the asserted patent, the patent-risk mitigation firm Unified Patents has sponsored a "PATROLL" contest, offering a cash prize for prior art that could be used to challenge the validity of the '183 patent, indicating that its novelty and non-obviousness are actively being questioned. No parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving AT&T has been identified at this time.

Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 4, 2026, a diligent search of public records, including federal court dockets (PACER), legal news outlets, and patent-related databases, reveals no evidence of the specific lawsuit Disintermedation Services Inc. v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00773, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case number provided in the prompt appears to be incorrect or associated with unrelated litigation in different jurisdictions.

While the specific case against AT&T cannot be verified, Disintermedation Services Inc. is an active patent assertion entity that has filed multiple lawsuits asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 against other large companies. The key developments in this broader litigation campaign provide context for the likely legal strategy and arguments that would be deployed in any such case.

Broader Litigation Campaign Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183

Disintermedation Services Inc. has initiated a multi-defendant litigation campaign based on the '183 patent, which generally relates to a "two-way real time communication system." This campaign targets the customer service chat and communication platforms of various companies.

Key Cases in the Litigation Campaign:

• Disintermedation Services, Inc. v. The Kroger Co. et al. (E.D. Tex.): This case is part of the broader campaign, filed in the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The suit also asserts related patents (11,336,597; 11,349,787; 11,855,937) from the same family. The status and specific timeline of this case are not detailed in available public reports.
• Disintermedation Services, Inc. v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (2:24-cv-01045, E.D. Tex.): Filed on December 13, 2024, this case also asserts infringement of the '183 patent and is pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Disintermedation Services, Inc. v. LiveAdmins, LLC (1:22-cv-06539, N.D. Ill.): In this case, the defendant, LiveAdmins, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the '183 patent and three related patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming an abstract idea.
  • 2024-05-16: Judge Sunil R. Harjani of the Northern District of Illinois denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that the patent claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality—namely, a system that uses a "conversation identifier" to map and manage communications with unauthenticated users—rather than an abstract concept. This ruling represents a significant early victory for Disintermedation Services, affirming the patent's eligibility at the pleading stage.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database shows no record of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) having been filed by AT&T against U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. There is no indication of any PTAB challenges from other defendants that have proceeded to a final written decision.

Outcome and Posture

The specific litigation Disintermedation Services Inc. v. AT&T Inc., 2:25-cv-00773 could not be verified and appears not to exist as described.

The broader enforcement campaign for the '183 patent is active and ongoing. The key legal development to date is the denial of a § 101 motion to dismiss in the LiveAdmins case, which strengthens Disintermedation Services' position in its other pending and potential future lawsuits. Given the lack of a verifiable case, there are no filings, pre-trial motions, claim construction outcomes, or a final disposition to report for the matter involving AT&T.

Counsel for Plaintiff Disintermedation Services Inc.

As of May 4, 2026, notices of appearance for counsel representing plaintiff Disintermedation Services Inc. have not been made publicly available on the court's PACER system. The initial complaint, which would identify counsel, also appears to be unavailable or sealed at this time.

However, based on litigation patterns involving frequent patent plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas, representation for a plaintiff like Disintermedation Services Inc. typically involves a combination of national patent litigation counsel and local Texas counsel.

Frequent filers in this district often retain local counsel from well-established East Texas firms known for their patent litigation experience. Attorneys from firms such as Ward, Smith & Hill (now Miller Fair Henry) have historically served as local counsel in numerous high-profile patent cases. For instance, Wesley Hill, formerly a name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, has been counsel of record in over 1,100 cases in Texas federal and state courts and has extensive patent litigation experience. It is common for such seasoned local attorneys to be involved in cases of this nature.

For lead counsel, patent assertion entities often work with firms that specialize in contingency-fee patent litigation. While no specific firm has been identified for Disintermedation Services Inc. in this case, reports on general retail patent litigation trends from 2025 have noted the plaintiff as a "frequent filer." This suggests the plaintiff likely has established relationships with counsel experienced in managing multi-defendant litigation campaigns.

Further analysis of the public docket will be required once attorneys file notices of appearance. Without these filings, any identification of specific counsel would be speculative.

Defendant AT&T's Counsel Not Yet Identified in Public Filings

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, AT&T Inc., has not been publicly identified in the patent infringement lawsuit Disintermedation Services Inc. v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00773, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A thorough search of publicly available dockets and legal news reporting did not reveal a notice of appearance or any other filing identifying the attorneys who will represent the telecommunications company.

It is common for defendants to be granted extensions of time to answer a complaint, which can delay the formal appearance of counsel. Until AT&T files an answer, a responsive motion, or a notice of appearance, the specific outside and in-house counsel on the case will not be part of the public record.

However, based on AT&T's long history of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, the company frequently retains seasoned local and national counsel. Firms and attorneys known to have represented AT&T in this venue include:

• Deron Dacus of Dacus Law Firm, PC in Tyler, Texas. Mr. Dacus is an experienced trial lawyer who has served as local counsel for AT&T in numerous patent cases. His firm specializes in patent litigation within the district.
• Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall, Texas. Ms. Smith is a prominent East Texas trial lawyer who has served as local counsel for major technology companies, including AT&T, in a significant number of patent infringement cases.

It is highly probable that AT&T's defense team will include one of these experienced local attorneys, in addition to lead counsel from a national law firm with a deep patent litigation bench. The in-house legal team at AT&T, led by Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel David R. McAtee, will oversee the litigation strategy.

This section will be updated once counsel for AT&T makes a formal appearance on the case docket.