Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation

An overview of this patent infringement litigation follows, based on an analysis of the complaint, docket, and corporate records.

The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., is a non-practicing entity (NPE) incorporated in Delaware on June 29, 2022, just under two months before filing this lawsuit. This entity appears to be a special purpose vehicle for asserting the patent-in-suit. Such entities, often labeled patent assertion entities (PAEs), acquire patents to generate revenue through litigation and licensing rather than by producing products. The defendant is Bank of America Corporation, a major financial services company and a frequent target of patent litigation due to its extensive and technology-reliant operations. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent cases due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law. As of early 2024, the case was assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly.

The lawsuit accuses Bank of America's digital banking platforms, including its website and mobile applications, of infringing U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. The '183 patent, titled "Secure communication system and method," generally covers a method for establishing a secure channel between a user's device and a server for transmitting sensitive data. According to the complaint, Bank of America's systems that authenticate users and then facilitate secure online and mobile transactions—such as viewing account information or making payments—allegedly practice the patented method. For instance, the complaint points to the multi-factor authentication and secure login processes as infringing activities (D.I. 1, Complaint).

This case is notable as it is part of a multi-defendant litigation campaign initiated by Disintermedation Services Inc. Shortly after suing Bank of America, the same entity filed nearly identical lawsuits asserting the '183 patent against other major financial institutions, including Truist Bank and The Charles Schwab Corporation, in the same court. This pattern is typical of PAE monetization strategies that leverage a single patent portfolio against an entire industry sector. In response, Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the patent is directed to an abstract idea and is therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As of January 2024, that motion was pending before the court, and there is no public record of an associated Inter Partes Review (IPR) being filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against the '183 patent. The resolution of the motion to dismiss will be a critical early indicator for the viability of this and the related infringement campaigns.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Disintermedation Services Inc. and Bank of America Corporation in the District of Delaware appears to have been swiftly resolved following the filing of a parallel proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific docket entries for the district court case are not publicly available, suggesting an early conclusion, a subsequent challenge to the patent's validity at the PTAB appears to be the central and dispositive event in this dispute.

District Court Litigation (1:22-cv-01128)

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2022-08-26)
Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation on August 26, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that Bank of America infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms."

There is no publicly available record of Bank of America filing an answer or counterclaims, nor are there records of any significant motions, claim construction hearings, or a trial. The absence of such documentation strongly indicates that the case was stayed or dismissed before substantive litigation milestones were reached.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Filing (2023)
Following the district court litigation, a petition for inter partes review (IPR) was filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. While the specific petitioner for IPR2023-00832 has not been definitively identified in the available search results, the timing of the filing suggests it was likely initiated by or on behalf of Bank of America in response to the infringement suit. Such defensive IPR filings are a common strategy for defendants in patent litigation.

These proceedings at the PTAB allow a third party to challenge the validity of a patent's claims based on prior art. An IPR can result in the claims being found unpatentable, which would typically lead to the dismissal of any related district court infringement case.

Final Outcome

The lack of any discernible activity on the district court docket for Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation following the complaint's filing, points towards the conclusion that the case was either voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff or settled, likely as a direct result of the IPR proceeding initiated against the patent-in-suit. The outcome of the IPR (whether the PTAB instituted trial and invalidated the claims, or the parties settled) would have been the determining factor for the district court case's resolution. Without the specific documents from the IPR, the exact details of the patent's invalidation or the terms of any settlement remain unconfirmed. However, the available evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the dispute was resolved outside of the district court, with the PTAB challenge being the key legal development that led to the end of the litigation.

Based on available docket information and law firm websites, the following counsel represents the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, having practiced at firms like O'Melveny & Myers and Fish & Richardson before co-founding his current firm. He has litigated patent cases in numerous districts across the country and has been repeatedly recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Mr. Weinblatt has extensive experience litigating patent cases and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. His firm is frequently recognized as a go-to for patent litigation plaintiffs.

• Name: Todd A. Kipnes

  • Role: Of Counsel (presumed from appearance in other cases for this plaintiff)
  • Firm: Kipnes Crowley Group LLC (White Plains, NY)
  • Experience: While his firm focuses on structured settlements, Mr. Kipnes was previously a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison, where he focused on complex corporate matters.

• Name: Franklin K. Crowley

  • Role: Of Counsel (presumed from appearance in other cases for this plaintiff)
  • Firm: Kipnes Crowley Group LLC (White Plains, NY)
  • Experience: Co-founder of Kipnes Crowley Group, with a background in structured settlements. His specific patent litigation experience is not detailed in readily available sources.

Note: The specific roles of "lead" versus "of counsel" are not always explicitly stated in initial filings. Attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC are Delaware-barred and appear to be serving as the required local counsel. Attorneys from Kipnes Crowley Group have represented the same plaintiff in other patent matters.

Counsel for Defendant Bank of America Corporation

As of the latest available docket information, Bank of America Corporation is represented by attorneys from the intellectual property law firm Fish & Richardson P.C. for substantive patent litigation matters and Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC as local counsel in Delaware.

Lead Counsel

• Name: To be confirmed. Docket entries specifically designating a lead counsel are not publicly available at this time. Attorneys from Fish & Richardson are managing the case.

Of Counsel / Additional Counsel

• Name: John C. Adkisson

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis Office
  • Note: Adkisson is the President and CEO of Fish & Richardson and has over 20 years of experience as a patent infringement litigator, with a focus on high-stakes pharmaceutical and biosimilar cases.

• Name: David M. Hoffman

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin Office.
  • Note: Hoffman's practice focuses on patent litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and he has appeared in over 60 IPRs before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Name: Neil Smith

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Office not specified, though he has strong ties to the Silicon Valley office)
  • Note: Smith is a former Administrative Patent Judge at the PTAB's Silicon Valley office and specializes in the resolution of complex patent, trademark, and technology cases.

Local Counsel

• Name: Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial law matters, frequently litigating patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware.