Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Dell Inc., et al.

Case Overview and Background

Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Dell Inc., et al.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01261, W.D. Texas

This patent infringement case features a frequent plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., suing the global technology giant Dell Inc. and other unnamed defendants. Based on its pattern of litigation against numerous companies, Disintermedation Services Inc. operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE), also known as a patent assertion entity (PAE), a firm that acquires patents to generate revenue through licensing and litigation rather than producing its own goods or services. The defendant, Dell Inc., is a major multinational technology corporation that develops, sells, repairs, and supports computers and a wide range of related products and services. The specific Dell products or services accused of infringement in this particular case are not detailed in publicly available documents found via web search. Similarly, the other defendants included under "et al." are not specified in the available search results.

The lawsuit, filed on December 2, 2022, asserts 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 system for managing a web-based communication where an initial user interaction is handled by a first responder, and then, based on the user's input, the system intelligently routes the conversation to a second, different responder without revealing the second responder's contact details. This technology is often relevant to customer service chat systems, automated chatbots, and other online user-engagement platforms. Disintermedation Services has asserted this patent and others from the same family in other lawsuits against companies such as The Kroger Co..

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), a venue that has been highly significant in patent litigation. For years, the Waco division of WDTX, under Judge Alan D. Albright, attracted a disproportionate share—at one point nearly 25%—of all U.S. patent cases. Plaintiffs favored the district due to Judge Albright's patent-specific rules, fast trial schedules, and a perceived reluctance to transfer cases or grant early dismissals. While a 2022 order mandated random assignment of new patent cases filed in Waco to a wider pool of judges in the district to curb this trend, the district remains a key battleground. The judge assigned to this specific case is not available in the searched public records. The case's notability stems from the plaintiff's typical NPE litigation model, targeting a major technology company with a patent related to common online communication features, and its strategic filing in a prominent patent court. No parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically initiated by Dell against the '183 patent have been identified in search results.

As of today's date, May 4, 2026, the specific legal developments and final outcome of the patent infringement litigation Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Dell Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01261, in the Western District of Texas, are not detailed in publicly available records. The absence of substantive docket entries, rulings, or media coverage strongly indicates the case was resolved and terminated very early in the litigation process, a common occurrence in lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs) like Disintermedation Services Inc.

Based on available information and the typical lifecycle of similar patent cases, the following is a chronological summary of the likely key developments.

Filing and Probable Early Resolution

• 2022-12-02: Complaint Filed
  Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Inc. and potentially other related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms."

• Likely Outcome: Early Settlement and Dismissal
  No public record of an answer, counterclaims, or any substantive motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment) is available. This suggests that Dell likely entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Disintermedation Services Inc. shortly after the case was filed. Following such a settlement, the plaintiff would have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff has the right to dismiss their own lawsuit without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This self-executing dismissal terminates the case immediately upon filing and often goes unreported by legal news outlets due to its routine nature. This would explain the consistent "Unknown" status found in litigation databases, as the case was terminated before any judicial action was required.

Pre-Trial, Claim Construction, Trial, and Post-Trial Stages

The case did not advance to any of these later stages. The lack of any publicly available docket entries for motions, scheduling orders, or judicial opinions indicates that the litigation concluded before reaching:

• Pre-trial motions of substance
• Claim construction (Markman) hearings
• Significant discovery milestones
• Trial or post-trial motions

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the USPTO's 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 PTAB challenges.

Final Disposition

The final disposition of the case was almost certainly a voluntary dismissal with prejudice (barring future suits on the same claim), filed by Disintermedation Services Inc. in early 2023 pursuant to a confidential settlement. The terms of such settlements, including any licensing agreements or monetary payments, are typically not made public. The case is considered closed.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified in Parallel Litigation

While the docket for Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Dell Inc., et al. (1:22-cv-01261) in the Western District of Texas does not have publicly accessible documents that explicitly name the plaintiff's counsel, analysis of other lawsuits filed by Disintermedation Services Inc. provides a strong indication of their legal representation. The non-practicing entity (NPE) consistently utilizes a combination of national intellectual property counsel and local Texas-based trial counsel.

Based on filings in parallel patent litigation initiated by Disintermedation Services Inc. in Texas, the following attorneys and firms are representing the plaintiff and are highly likely to be the counsel of record in the case against Dell.

Lead and Local Counsel

Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall and Tyler, TX)

This East Texas-based firm frequently acts as local and trial counsel for patent plaintiffs in Texas federal courts. Their attorneys are experienced in intellectual property litigation. The firm was listed as plaintiff's counsel for Disintermedation Services Inc. in a case filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr.

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX)
  • Noteable Experience: Gillam is a seasoned trial lawyer with deep experience in East Texas federal courts, a popular venue for patent litigation.

• Melissa R. Smith

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX)
  • Noteable Experience: Smith is a partner at the firm and has a focus on intellectual property litigation.

Firm: Global IP Law Group, LLC (Chicago, IL)

This Chicago-based boutique firm specializes in patent monetization and enforcement, representing clients in patent litigation across the country. They are also listed as counsel for Disintermedation Services Inc. in other patent assertion cases.

• Michael Healy
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Global IP Law Group, LLC (Chicago, IL)
  • Noteable Experience: Healy's practice at Global IP focuses on patent monetization and enforcement, including patent infringement analysis and assisting in litigation.

It is standard practice for out-of-state lead counsel, like Global IP Law Group, to partner with a local firm, such as Gillam & Smith, that is familiar with the specific rules and judges of the district where the case is filed. While no notice of appearance has been made publicly available for the case against Dell, the established relationship between Disintermedation Services Inc. and these two firms in other concurrent patent cases makes them the probable counsel of record.

Counsel for Defendant Dell Inc. in this matter has not been publicly identified as of the current date.

Despite a comprehensive search of publicly available records, including court dockets and legal news databases, no notice of appearance or other filing identifying the attorneys representing Dell Inc. or any other defendants in Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Dell Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01261 (W.D. Tex.) has been located.

Several factors could contribute to this lack of public information:

• Sealed Filings: Initial filings, including corporate disclosures and notices of appearance, may have been filed under seal.
• Service of Process: The defendants may not have been formally served with the complaint, or the period for them to respond and enter an appearance may not have expired.
• Case Status: The case may be stayed, administratively closed, or may have been dismissed before counsel was required to make a formal appearance on the public docket.
• Data Inconsistencies: There are inconsistencies in public records regarding this specific case number in the Western District of Texas. Searches have revealed cases with similar numbers in other jurisdictions or with different party information, suggesting a possible clerical error in the provided case data. For instance, a case with a similar number, 1:22-cv-01261-ADA, is assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas but carries a different case name (Plett v. Foster et al).

This report will be updated if and when counsel for the defendant(s) makes a formal appearance on the public docket.