Disintermedation Services Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology

This case pits Disintermedation Services Inc., a patent assertion entity, against GoDaddy.com, LLC, a major internet domain registrar and web hosting company. Non-practicing entities (NPEs), also known as patent assertion entities (PAEs), are companies that acquire patents to generate revenue by asserting them against alleged infringers, rather than by producing their own products or services. Disintermedation Services appears to follow this model, having asserted its patents against other companies as well. GoDaddy is an operating company that provides a suite of online services, including domain registration, website building, hosting, and online marketing tools. The lawsuit alleges that GoDaddy's website chat feature, which allows customers to communicate with GoDaddy support, infringes on the asserted patent. The specific functionality at issue has not been publicly detailed, but based on the patent's description, it likely relates to how GoDaddy manages and routes these real-time customer service chat sessions.

Asserted Patent and Procedural Posture

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." The patent generally describes a system for managing a communication session, like a web chat, initiated by a user and transferring that conversation to different responders as needed. The case was filed on April 14, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This venue is a significant hub for patent litigation, having seen a high volume of intellectual property cases over the years. The court has a number of judges experienced in patent law and is known for its willingness to decide cases on dispositive motions. The specific judge assigned to this case is not clear from available public information.

Notability and Context

The case is notable as an example of the ongoing trend of NPEs asserting patents against large technology companies that offer common web functionalities like customer support chat. The outcome could impact how companies like GoDaddy implement and source such features on their websites. Disintermedation Services has been involved in other patent litigation, suggesting a pattern of assertion. The choice of the Central District of California is also noteworthy; while historically a popular venue, the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC tightened the rules on where patent lawsuits can be filed, often restricting them to the defendant's home state or where it has a regular and established place of business. GoDaddy's significant corporate presence in neighboring Arizona may have factored into the venue selection, though its nationwide business operations are extensive. No parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have been publicly identified for the '183 patent, which can be a common strategy for defendants to challenge patent validity outside of district court litigation.

Legal Developments and Outcome

Based on publicly available information, this case concluded swiftly and confidentially, indicating an early-stage resolution before any significant litigation milestones were reached.

Filing and Initial Stages (2023)

• 2023-04-14: Complaint Filed
  Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against GoDaddy.com, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that GoDaddy's website chat functionalities infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. The case was assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi.

Case Conclusion (2023)

• 2023-08-25: Notice of Settlement
  The parties filed a joint notice of settlement with the court, indicating they had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed publicly.

• 2023-08-28: Dismissal with Prejudice
  Following the notice of settlement, the court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. This type of dismissal means that Disintermedation Services cannot refile the same claim against GoDaddy in the future. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.

Analysis of Abbreviated Timeline

The case was active for just over four months, from filing to dismissal. This compressed timeline suggests that the parties likely engaged in early settlement discussions, bypassing the more costly and time-consuming stages of patent litigation. The case did not proceed to:

• An answer or counterclaims from GoDaddy.
• Any substantive motions, such as a motion to dismiss or transfer.
• Claim construction (Markman) proceedings.
• Significant discovery.
• Trial or final judgment on the merits.

No parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183 have been identified. The rapid settlement in the district court precluded the need for GoDaddy to file an inter partes review (IPR) to challenge the patent's validity. The confidential nature of the settlement means the financial terms, if any, and any potential licensing agreements remain unknown.

Despite a thorough search of publicly available litigation databases, news reports, and legal analytics platforms, the specific counsel of record for the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., in its patent infringement lawsuit against GoDaddy.com, LLC (2:23-cv-02721, C.D. Cal.) could not be definitively identified.

Court filings, including the initial complaint which would list the plaintiff's attorneys, are not accessible through the web searches conducted. Such documents are typically available through the court's official Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, but access to that system is restricted.

Disintermedation Services Inc. appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) that has filed several patent infringement lawsuits against various companies. However, information about the law firms that consistently represent this entity is not readily available in the public domain. Without access to the official court docket or a news report specifically naming the attorneys who filed the complaint, any identification of counsel would be speculative.

Therefore, it must be explicitly stated that the counsel for the plaintiff has not yet appeared in publicly accessible records.

Defendant Counsel for GoDaddy.com, LLC

Based on a review of publicly accessible information, the specific attorneys who represented GoDaddy.com, LLC in Disintermedation Services Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (2:23-cv-02721, C.D. Cal.) cannot be definitively identified.

The case was filed on April 14, 2023, and was terminated just over four months later via a notice of settlement on August 25, 2023, followed by a dismissal with prejudice on August 28, 2023. Given this swift resolution, it is likely that defense counsel filed a notice of appearance. However, this and other key documents, such as an answer or initial motions, are not available through public web searches. Such filings are typically housed on the court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, which requires a subscription to access.

Without access to the official court docket, any identification of GoDaddy's counsel in this specific matter would be speculative.

While counsel for this case is not publicly known, GoDaddy has been represented by other law firms in prior patent and technology-related litigation:

• Ballard Spahr LLP: Attorneys from this firm, including partner Brian LaCorte, represented GoDaddy in a significant patent infringement case brought by RPost Communications. GoDaddy prevailed in that matter, with the courts invalidating the asserted patents.
• Unknown Firms in Other Matters: GoDaddy has been a party in various other technology-related lawsuits, including a cybersquatting trial and a patent dispute with Express Mobile, Inc., but the specific outside counsel in every case is not always reported in publicly available sources.

It is common for large corporations like GoDaddy to retain different law firms for different matters, depending on the technology at issue, the venue, and the nature of the plaintiff. Therefore, representation in past cases does not confirm who was retained for the Disintermedation Services lawsuit.