Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Cox Communications, Inc.

Case Background and Notable Elements

Disintermedation Services Inc. has initiated a broad patent assertion campaign, positioning itself as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The company does not appear to produce goods or services but instead acquires and asserts patents against operating companies. This is evidenced by its litigation history, which includes suits filed on the same day in June 2022 against numerous major telecommunications and technology companies, including Cox Communications, Comcast, Charter, DISH Network, Verizon, and U.S. Cellular, all asserting the same patent. The defendant, Cox Communications, Inc., is a major provider of cable television, internet, and phone services in the United States, serving millions of customers. The lawsuit alleges that Cox's customer communication systems, likely those that allow customers to interact with support across different platforms (e.g., starting on a web chat and continuing via SMS), infringe on the asserted patent.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue that became a magnet for patent litigation under Judge Alan D. Albright. Plaintiffs were attracted to his court due to his experience as a patent litigator, his plaintiff-friendly procedures, and the near certainty of having him preside over their cases if filed in the Waco division. While a July 2022 order mandated random assignment of new patent cases filed in Waco, this case was filed just a month prior, likely ensuring its assignment to Judge Albright's docket, which at one point handled nearly 25% of all U.S. patent cases. However, with Judge Albright announcing his departure from the bench effective August 2026, the management of his significant backlog, including this case, will fall to his colleagues, potentially altering the litigation's trajectory.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, is titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." It generally covers a system where a user can initiate a conversation on one platform (like a web browser) and have it seamlessly transferred to a second responder on a different platform. The case is notable as part of a large-scale, multi-defendant assertion campaign by an NPE, a common pattern in patent litigation. The widespread assertion of a single patent against major players in the telecommunications industry suggests an effort to secure licensing fees through litigation pressure. The validity of the '183 patent has been questioned, with analyses suggesting it may be obvious in light of prior art. The ultimate resolution of this and its parallel cases could have a notable impact on how companies manage cross-platform customer service communications.

Case Resolved in Under Three Months, Suggesting Early Settlement

Waco, TX – The patent infringement lawsuit brought by Disintermedation Services Inc. against Cox Communications, Inc. in the Western District of Texas was dismissed just over two months after it was filed, indicating a likely early settlement between the parties. The case, filed on June 22, 2022, was terminated on or around September 2, 2022. Due to the rapid resolution, the litigation did not progress to any significant legal milestones such as claim construction, substantive motion practice, or trial.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Filing and Initial Pleadings (June-August 2022)

• Complaint (2022-06-22): Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Cox Communications, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." This was one of numerous lawsuits filed by Disintermedation Services against major telecommunications and technology companies asserting the same patent.
• Answer: While the specific docket is not publicly available through general web searches, in a typical case timeline, Cox would have filed an answer to the complaint, likely denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the patent. Given the short duration of the case, this was probably the only substantive pleading filed.

Outcome: Settlement and Dismissal (September 2022)

• Dismissal (2022-09-02): Court records indicate that the case was terminated on September 2, 2022. A dismissal this quickly after filing strongly suggests the parties reached a settlement. The dismissal would have been filed jointly by the parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, likely with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney's fees. The specific terms of the settlement are presumed to be confidential.

Due to the early settlement, the following litigation stages were never reached:

• Pre-trial Motions: There is no indication that any substantive motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment were filed.
• Claim Construction: The case was dismissed long before a Markman hearing for claim construction would have been scheduled or decided.
• Trial and Final Judgment: The case did not proceed to trial, and no final judgment on the merits was entered by the court.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings
A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. Therefore, the district court litigation was not impacted by any parallel administrative proceedings.

Counsel for Plaintiff Disintermedation Services Inc.

Based on court filings and attorney profiles, the following counsel represent the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., in this litigation. The legal team is composed of attorneys from two firms, a common strategy in patent cases filed in Texas, combining national patent litigation expertise with experienced local counsel.

Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC

This firm appears to be lead counsel for the plaintiff.

• Matthew J. Antonelli, Role: Lead Counsel.

  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (formerly Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson).
  • Office Location: Houston, TX.
  • Note: Mr. Antonelli is a founding partner of his firm and a registered patent attorney with extensive experience in patent litigation across the country, including significant experience in the Eastern District of Texas. He has managed all phases of litigation, from discovery to trial and Markman hearings.

• Zachariah S. Harrington, Role: Counsel.

  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (formerly Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson).
  • Office Location: Houston, TX.
  • Note: Mr. Harrington is an intellectual property attorney and a founding partner of his firm, with prior experience as in-house IP counsel for Bechtel Corporation and as a patent litigator at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. He is a registered patent attorney admitted to practice before the USPTO.

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

This firm serves as local counsel in Texas.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP.
  • Office Location: Gladewater, TX.
  • Note: Ms. DeRieux is a partner at her firm with a broad federal practice that includes intellectual property and commercial litigation. Her firm is located centrally to federal courthouses in the Eastern District of Texas, and she is admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas where this case is filed.

Based on publicly available information as of May 4, 2026, the specific attorneys representing defendant Cox Communications, Inc. in this case have not been identified.

A search of court record databases and legal news archives did not reveal a notice of appearance or other definitive docket entries that name counsel for the defendant in Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Cox Communications, Inc., 6:22-cv-00644 (W.D. Tex.).

This lack of information could be for several reasons:

• The case may be in a very early stage, and Cox Communications' legal team may not have formally filed an appearance with the court yet.
• The parties may have entered into discussions or reached a settlement before the defendant's answer or first responsive pleading was due, precluding the need for counsel to appear on the public docket.
• Relevant court filings might be sealed or not yet accessible through public web searches.

Without a review of the official court docket on PACER, which is not available through public web search, the names of the defense counsel cannot be definitively provided at this time.