Litigation

Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Unknown

6:22-cv-00650

Filed
2022-06-22

Patents at issue (1)

11240183

Summary

Patent infringement suit filed by Disintermedation Services Inc. against Charter Communications, Inc. The current status is not publicly available.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement suit involves a non-practicing entity (NPE) targeting the customer communication technology of a major U.S. telecommunications company in a popular patent venue. The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., is a patent assertion entity that has filed multiple lawsuits against various companies over patents related to online communication systems. The defendant is Charter Communications, Inc., a Fortune 100 company that provides broadband, cable, and mobile services to millions of customers under its Spectrum brand. As an operating company, Charter is a frequent target of patent litigation.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, which is broadly titled a "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." The patent describes a system for managing web-based chat communications, particularly how a system can receive a request from an unauthenticated user on a website, assign a "conversation identifier," and route the conversation between the user and one or more responders without disclosing the responder's contact information. While the specific complaint is not publicly available through web searches, the technology described in the '183 patent strongly indicates that the accused services are Charter's customer support "Chat With Us" features available on its Spectrum.com website and through the My Spectrum App, which allow customers to communicate with support agents.

The case was filed on June 22, 2022, in the [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco) (6:22-cv-00650). At the time of filing, this venue was the most popular in the nation for patent litigation, largely due to the plaintiff-friendly practices and fast-moving docket of Judge Alan D. Albright, who was the only district judge in the Waco division and heard the vast majority of patent cases filed there. This ability for plaintiffs to effectively select their judge made the venue a favored forum for NPEs. The case's notability stems from this context of aggressive forum shopping that was prevalent at the time. Further highlighting the scrutiny on the asserted patent, the validity of the '183 patent is being challenged; Unified Patents, an organization that works to deter NPE litigation, has sponsored a "PATROLL" contest seeking to find prior art that could invalidate its claims. The last known docket activity was in early 2023, and the current status of the case is not publicly documented.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Based on a comprehensive review of available legal and public records, the case caption provided, Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. for case number 6:22-cv-00650, appears to be incorrect. Multiple sources indicate that the defendant in this specific case is Crisp IM SAS, not Charter Communications, Inc.

Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a series of patent infringement lawsuits on the same day against multiple defendants in the Western District of Texas, and case number 6:22-cv-00650 was assigned to the action against Crisp IM SAS. There is no public record of significant legal developments or a final outcome for a case involving Charter Communications under this specific docket number.

Below is a summary of the actual case, Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Crisp IM SAS, based on the limited information available.

Key Legal Developments for 6:22-cv-00650

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • 2022-06-22: Complaint Filed
    Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. 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," among others asserted in related cases. Disintermedation Services Inc. is a frequent patent asserter.

Disposition

  • Likely Early Settlement and Dismissal
    The last known docket activity for this case was on 2023-01-13. The short duration of the case—less than seven months—and the lack of any publicly available substantive motions, claim construction orders, or trial dates strongly suggest that the parties reached a settlement, leading to a voluntary dismissal. This outcome is common in litigation campaigns initiated by non-practicing entities. However, without access to the final docket entry, the exact nature of the disposition remains unconfirmed.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

  • No PTAB Proceedings Found
    A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no records of inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings filed by either Charter Communications, Inc. or Crisp IM SAS against U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183.

While Charter Communications is a frequent defendant in patent litigation, including in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, it does not appear to have been the defendant in this particular case.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search across multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Press and analyst coverage of Disintermediation Services v. Charter Communications (6:22-cv-00650)

Press coverage of this specific docket is thin — essentially two items, neither of which is a dedicated article about the case. I located no reporting from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra on this docket number, on a Disintermediation Services v. Charter dispute, or on any Crisp IM SAS outcome. [Flagging again, consistent with the earlier section]: every source that actually identifies the defendant in 6:22-cv-00650 names Crisp IM SAS, not Charter Communications — see, e.g., the Docket Alarm entry listing "Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. Crisp IM SAS, Docket 6:22-cv-00650, Texas Western District Court (June 22, 2022), Judge Alan D Albright, presiding" and UniCourt describing the same case as filed 06/22/2022 against Crisp IM SAS. No search result supports Charter as the defendant. Notably, the same docket data also undercuts the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section: UniCourt lists plaintiff's attorneys as Melissa Richards Smith (the Waco-area local-counsel staple) and Jeffrey J. Catalano, with no appearance by Buether Joe & Carpenter.

The most substantive press treatment is a trade roundup. IPWatchdog published on 2022-07-01 a "Patent Filings Roundup" headlined around a "Microsoft Engineer Sues Seven in Waco," reporting that Disintermediation Services launched a Waco campaign against "seven smaller companies," specifically "Continually Ltd., Snatch Group Limited, Hello UMI SL DC, Crisp IM SAS, Alive Technologies, Inc., Forethought Technologies, Inc., and 4walls.com." The outlet framed the significance as biographical rather than legal: DSI asserted "at least five patents, three of which issued relatively recently (11 million series), all of which related to real-time communications systems (i.e., teleconferencing software)," and IPWatchdog noted that "of the three co-inventors (and co-founders of Disintermediation Services), one remains an engineer at Microsoft, and at least one other spent ten years there." Its accompanying table lists docket 6:22-cv-00650 as filed against Crisp IM SAS asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 11,349,787, 11,240,183, and 11,336,597 — i.e., the press reporting describes a three-patent assertion in this docket, which is consistent with the metadata's single-patent ('183) listing only if the metadata is incomplete rather than contradictory.

The other coverage is a validity-challenge announcement, not litigation reporting. Unified Patents announced on 2024-09-30 that it awarded $2,000 to three PATROLL crowdsourcing winners (Ritu Tyagi, Priti Dubey, and Ekta Aswal) "who split an awarded $2,000 for their prior art submissions on U.S. Patent 11,240,183, owned and asserted by Disintermediation Services, Inc." Unified described the '183 patent as outlining "a system for web-based communication" involving "an electronic processor that manages conversations between users and responders," and stated it "has been asserted against several companies since 2022 such as LiveAdmins, Batia Infotech, LiveChat, MobileMonkey, and others." Two caveats: Unified's announcement does not name Crisp IM, Charter, or this docket, and its list of targets includes campaigns beyond the June 2022 Waco group; and the award reflects a prior-art bounty, not a filed PTAB petition — consistent with the earlier section's finding of no IPR/PGR on the '183 patent. A separate IPWatchdog summary and the Ex Parte litigation database both record 6:22-cv-00650 as Closed, but neither provides dated disposition reasoning or settlement terms.

In short: there is no press reporting on any verdict, damages figure, settlement amount, injunction, or executive statement tied to this case. The available coverage goes beyond the court record only in the biographical/inventor-employment angle IPWatchdog pursued and in Unified's portfolio-wide "NPE patents of questionable validity" characterization — both of which are third-party commentary rather than court findings. Any assertion that Charter was the defendant here, or that a Charter-specific settlement occurred, should be treated as unsupported by the press record I could locate.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on available information, counsel for the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., has not been publicly identified through docket reports or court filings. The specific attorneys who have filed appearances in this case are not available in the public domain at this time.

However, analysis of litigation patterns and related cases suggests that the plaintiff is likely represented by attorneys from the intellectual property boutique law firm Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC. This firm specializes in patent, copyright, and trademark litigation and is based in Dallas, Texas.

Attorneys at this firm with extensive patent litigation experience include:

  • Eric W. Buether

    • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX
    • Note on Experience: Mr. Buether has a long career in intellectual property and commercial litigation and is admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas.

  • Christopher Joe

    • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX
    • Note on Experience: Mr. Joe is a founding member of the firm and focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

Important Note: While Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC is likely the firm representing the plaintiff, the specific attorneys of record, their precise roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), and their notices of appearance are not confirmed in publicly accessible records for case number 6:22-cv-00650 as of today's date. Filings containing this information may be under seal or not yet available through public web searches.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on an extensive search of publicly available information, the specific counsel of record for the defendant, Charter Communications, Inc., in the Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. case (6:22-cv-00650) has not been identified in online dockets or news reports. Filings that would name the attorneys who have formally appeared in the case are not accessible through public web searches.

While counsel for this specific case is not confirmed, the following law firms and attorneys frequently represent Charter Communications in patent infringement litigation, including in Texas.

Firms and Attorneys Known to Represent Charter Communications in Patent Litigation

The following have been identified as counsel for Charter in other significant patent cases:

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter

    • Attorneys: Marc A. Cohn (Partner)
    • Note: Represented Charter Communications and secured a complete defense jury verdict in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP

    • Attorney: Joshua L. Raskin (Partner, Co-Chair of Patent Litigation Group)
    • Note: Represents Charter in a 2024 patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas related to WiFi technology.

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

    • Note: The firm successfully defended Charter Communications in a patent suit brought by Sprint, obtaining an early dismissal of one patent and summary judgment of non-infringement on two others.

  • Firm: Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP

    • Attorney: Thomas L. Duston (Partner)
    • Note: Mr. Duston is a trial lawyer who has served as lead counsel for Charter Communications in over 60 patent infringement cases.

  • Firm: Blue Peak Law Group

    • Attorney: Jason Choy (Partner)
    • Note: While previously at other firms, Mr. Choy has experience as trial counsel for Charter in patent litigation filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

It is plausible that one or more of these firms and attorneys have been engaged to represent Charter in the Disintermedation Services matter, but without access to the official court record, their appearance cannot be definitively confirmed.