Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against major corporations in the financial services and retail sectors. The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE), a company whose primary business is generating revenue by licensing and litigating patents rather than producing goods or services. It has filed similar suits against other large companies like Bank of America, asserting patents from the same family. The defendant, Capital One Financial Corporation, is a major American bank holding company providing a wide range of financial products, including credit cards, consumer banking, and auto loans. The lawsuit alleges that Capital One's customer-facing communication systems, likely the chat and messaging functionalities on its website and mobile applications used for customer service, infringe upon the plaintiff's patent.

The case centers on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." In essence, the patent claims a method for managing a web-based conversation where a user's initial communication is received, assigned a unique identifier, and then routed to an appropriate responder (e.g., a specific customer service agent) without exposing the responder's direct contact information to the user. This technology is foundational to many modern online customer service chat platforms. Disintermedation Services asserts that Capital One's implementation of such a system for interacting with its customers infringes on the claims of the '183 patent.

The case was filed on November 15, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1:22-cv-01490), a prominent and highly experienced venue for patent litigation. The District of Delaware is a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs because many U.S. companies are incorporated there, establishing proper legal venue, and its judges are well-versed in handling complex patent disputes. The case's notability stems from its context as part of a multi-front assertion campaign by an NPE targeting a common and widely used technology—customer service chat systems. The plaintiff's litigation pattern, including a declaratory judgment action filed against it by another technology company, Intercom, Inc., involving the same patent family, suggests a strategy of asserting these patents broadly across the industry. The public docket does not yet indicate a resolution or significant rulings in the case against Capital One.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is the summary of key legal developments and the outcome for Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01490, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Based on a thorough review of court databases and legal reporting as of May 4, 2026, the case record indicates an early and confidential resolution with no substantive legal proceedings taking place on the public docket.

Chronological Case Summary

Filing

• 2022-11-15: Disintermedation Services Inc. ("Disintermedation") filed a patent infringement complaint against Capital One Financial Corporation ("Capital One"). The suit asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms."

Subsequent Proceedings & Outcome

• Following the initial complaint, there is no public record of an answer or counterclaim being filed by Capital One.
• No substantive motions, such as a motion to dismiss or transfer, appear on any publicly available docket report.
• The case did not advance to significant litigation milestones such as a Markman claim construction hearing, summary judgment motions, or trial.
• The final disposition of the case is not documented in a public court order. Litigation tracking services consistently report the status as "Unknown."

Analysis and Likely Outcome
The absence of any docket activity following the complaint is highly indicative of a pre-answer resolution. It is common for patent infringement cases, particularly those filed by non-practicing entities like Disintermedation, to be resolved quickly and confidentially.

The most probable outcome for this case is that the parties reached a private settlement, which would have been followed by the filing of a stipulation of dismissal. In many such instances, the settlement terms remain confidential, and the court's involvement is limited to closing the case upon notification from the parties. Without access to a specific notice or stipulation of dismissal, the precise date of termination cannot be confirmed, but it likely occurred shortly after the suit was filed and before Capital One's deadline to file a responsive pleading.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no records of inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings having been filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. Therefore, the district court litigation was not impacted by any parallel administrative challenges at the USPTO.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified

As of May 4, 2026, counsel from two law firms have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., in its patent infringement case against Capital One Financial Corporation in the District of Delaware. The legal team comprises attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and Farnan LLP, both based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Here are the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

• Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, having previously practiced at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C. before co-founding his current firm. He has litigated patent cases in various districts nationwide, including the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of Texas, and districts in California.

• Richard C. Weinblatt, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Weinblatt's practice is focused on patent litigation and appellate work, with over 20 years of experience in intellectual property law, including time at Fish & Richardson, P.C. He has successfully argued appeals before the Federal Circuit, notably securing a reversal of a district court's dismissal in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.

Farnan LLP

• Brian E. Farnan, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Farnan frequently serves as Delaware counsel for patent holders in complex litigation and has tried numerous jury and bench trials in Delaware's federal and state courts. He is recognized as a leading lawyer by publications such as Chambers USA and IAM Patent 1000.

• Michael J. Farnan, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Farnan's practice includes serving as Delaware counsel in patent cases, and he has been part of litigation teams that have recovered billions of dollars for clients. He regularly appears in Delaware's federal and state courts on behalf of plaintiffs in patent, antitrust, and securities cases.

Counsel for Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation Identified

As of May 4, 2026, counsel from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP and Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP have appeared on behalf of defendant Capital One Financial Corporation in its patent infringement litigation with Disintermedation Services Inc. in the District of Delaware.

Here are the attorneys of record for the defendant:

Local Counsel

• Name: Jack B. Blumenfeld

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A highly-regarded Delaware patent litigator, often referred to as a "dean of the Delaware bar," with over 40 years of experience in high-stakes pharmaceutical and technology patent cases.

• Name: Michael J. Flynn

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Experience information for Michael J. Flynn was not readily available in the search results.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Stephen B. Kinnard

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: An appellate specialist and co-chair of his firm's Supreme Court and appellate group, with experience in intellectual property matters at the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and district courts.

• Name: Elisha S. Block

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Experience information for Elisha S. Block was not readily available in the search results.

Notices of appearance for these attorneys can be found in the case docket. Publicly available docket entries do not indicate any in-house counsel from Capital One having formally appeared in the case.