Disintermedation Services Inc. v. DISH Network Corporation

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement lawsuit pits Disintermedation Services Inc., a patent assertion entity, against DISH Network Corporation, a major U.S. satellite television provider and owner of mobile wireless and streaming services. Disintermedation Services, which holds a portfolio of patents related to real-time communications, alleges that DISH's customer service platforms, particularly the chat features on the DISH and Sling TV websites, infringe its patent. Such features allow customers to interact with support agents, and the core of the plaintiff's allegation is that the technology managing these conversations is covered by its intellectual property. Disintermedation Services has filed similar lawsuits against other companies, a common strategy for non-practicing entities (NPEs), also called patent assertion entities (PAEs), which primarily generate revenue through patent licensing and litigation rather than by producing goods or services.

The single patent at issue is 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 describes a system for managing a web-based conversation where a user's initial query can be handled by a first responder (such as an automated agent) and then seamlessly transferred to a second, different responder (like a live human agent) based on the content of the conversation, without revealing the second responder's direct contact details. DISH Network, a subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation, provides satellite TV under the DISH brand and a streaming service under the Sling brand, in addition to operating a 5G wireless network. The accused technology is the customer support chat functionality on DISH's websites, which allegedly uses the patented method of routing and handling user communications with customer service representatives.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), a venue that has become a focal point for U.S. patent litigation. For several years, the Waco division, under Judge Alan D. Albright, attracted nearly 25% of all patent cases nationwide, largely due to procedures seen as favorable to patent plaintiffs, such as a fast track to trial and a reluctance to transfer cases to other venues or dismiss them on early motions. While a 2022 order mandated random assignment of patent cases filed in Waco among a dozen judges in the district to curb this concentration, the WDTX remains a significant and popular venue. The case's assignment to a specific judge is not publicly available, but the choice of this district is notable in itself, reflecting a common strategy among patent assertion entities to file in plaintiff-friendly courts to gain leverage in licensing negotiations. Judge Albright himself announced plans to step down from the federal bench in August 2026.

Legal Developments & Case Outcome

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Disintermedation Services Inc. against DISH Network Corporation in the Western District of Texas was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 7, 2022, less than four months after its filing. This swift conclusion suggests the parties likely reached a settlement, a common outcome in such disputes, although the specific terms were not made public.

Chronology of Key Events:

• 2022-06-22: Complaint Filed
  Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint (Case 6:22-cv-00649) against DISH Network Corporation, alleging that DISH's customer service chat functionalities infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. This was one of numerous similar lawsuits filed by the plaintiff on the same day against various companies in the same court.

• Initial Case Proceedings
  Following the filing, the case would have proceeded through standard initial stages, including the formal summons of DISH Network. However, publicly accessible records do not indicate that DISH filed an answer or any substantive motions, such as a motion to dismiss or transfer, before the case was terminated.

• 2022-10-07: Voluntary Dismissal
  The case was terminated when the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. This type of dismissal allows the plaintiff to potentially refile the case at a later date, but it often signifies that the parties have resolved the dispute out of court. Given the speed of the dismissal and the absence of contested motions on the docket, a confidential settlement agreement is the most probable reason for the case's termination.

Parallel Proceedings:

There is no public record of any parallel inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). An IPR is a common defensive strategy for defendants in patent litigation, but it appears one was not filed or was not necessary in this instance, likely due to the early settlement.

This case is characteristic of the broader litigation campaign by Disintermedation Services Inc., which has asserted the '183 patent against a wide array of companies. The rapid resolution of the suit against DISH Network aligns with the business model of many patent assertion entities, which often favor quick licensing deals over protracted and expensive litigation.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Based on an analysis of available court filings and legal directories, the following attorneys represent the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc.

• Mark S. Raskin - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery (New York, NY)
  • Note: Raskin's practice is focused on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, and copyright matters; he notably represented ChanBond LLC in a case against the cable TV industry that resulted in a $125 million settlement.

• Robert P. Greenspoon - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig (Chicago, IL)
  • Note: A registered patent attorney, Greenspoon has a broad practice that covers patent litigation, appeals before the Federal Circuit, and patent prosecution for clients including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

It is worth noting that attorney searches for this case sometimes associate the firm Greenspoon Marder LLP. This may be due to the presence of Robert Greenspoon on the case, although he is currently a partner at Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig. Another prominent patent litigator, Mark Raskin, was previously the managing partner of Mishcon de Reya's New York office, a firm with a significant patent litigation practice, before joining Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery.

Defendant's Counsel

DISH Network Corporation is represented by attorneys from the law firm Holland & Hart LLP, a firm known for its extensive intellectual property and complex commercial litigation practices. The specific attorneys who have made appearances in this case are detailed below.

• Teague I. Donahey - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Holland & Hart LLP (Boulder, CO)
  • Note: Donahey is a partner in the firm's patent litigation group and has represented major technology and telecommunications companies in patent disputes across the country.

• Stacy R. B. Foster - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Holland & Hart LLP (Denver, CO)
  • Note: Foster's practice focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation, and she has experience defending clients in the telecommunications sector against patent infringement claims.

• Christina J. Brown - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Holland & Hart LLP (Salt Lake City, UT)
  • Note: Brown is an intellectual property litigator who has represented clients in the software and telecommunications industries in patent, trademark, and copyright disputes.

• Larry L. Sconzo - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Holland & Hart LLP (Austin, TX)
  • Note: Sconzo serves as local counsel in Texas and has experience litigating patent cases in various Texas federal courts, including the Western and Eastern Districts.