Disintermedation Services Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit features a frequent patent assertor, Disintermedation Services Inc., taking on one of the largest financial institutions in the world, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Based on its pattern of litigation against numerous companies across various sectors, Disintermedation Services Inc. operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE), also known as a patent assertion entity (PAE), a company that derives revenue primarily from licensing and enforcing its patent portfolio rather than from selling products or services. The defendant, JPMorgan Chase, is a global financial services firm providing a vast array of banking, investment, and asset management services. The specific accused technology is not detailed in publicly available documents, but based on the patent-in-suit, it likely involves JPMorgan Chase's customer communication systems, such as the chat or messaging functionalities on its website or mobile applications that connect customers with service agents.

The single patent asserted 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 communication from a user by first engaging an initial automated or human responder and then seamlessly handing the conversation off to a second, separate responder based on the user's input, without revealing the second responder's direct contact information. Disintermedation Services has asserted this patent and related family members against other companies in various jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a premier venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed body of case law. While the assigned judge is not confirmed in available public records, the court's significance has been amplified by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly's standing orders enacted in 2022. These orders mandate the disclosure of third-party litigation funding and detailed information about the ownership of non-governmental corporate parties, continuing up the chain to identify every individual with an interest. These requirements are particularly impactful in suits brought by PAEs, which often utilize complex corporate structures and outside funding. The case is therefore notable as part of a broader assertion campaign by an NPE against a major operating company, and its progression could be significantly influenced by the rigorous disclosure rules unique to certain judges within this key patent jurisdiction.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Following its filing, the patent infringement lawsuit Disintermedation Services Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. appears to have concluded without any significant, publicly documented legal proceedings. An exhaustive search for court records, rulings, and related legal news reveals a lack of substantive developments, which strongly suggests a common outcome in patent litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs): an early and confidential settlement.

Here is a chronological summary of the known events and the likely, though unconfirmed, progression of the case:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2022-11-30): Disintermedation Services Inc. filed its complaint against JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on November 30, 2022. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, which relates to a system for managing real-time communications. Publicly accessible records do not contain information regarding JPMorgan Chase's official answer to the complaint or any counterclaims that may have been filed. Typically, an answer would have been due within a few months of the filing, suggesting the case was resolved before that deadline.

• Substantive Motions and Court Rulings: There is no public record of any significant pre-trial motions, such as a motion to dismiss from JPMorgan Chase challenging the patent's validity under Section 101 or the sufficiency of the infringement allegations. Similarly, there are no documented motions to transfer the case to a different venue or to stay the litigation pending a patent review. The absence of any published opinions or orders from the court on such matters indicates the case did not advance to the motion practice stage.

• Claim Construction, Discovery, and Trial: The litigation did not progress to key later-stage milestones. There was no Markman hearing for claim construction, no significant discovery disputes recorded in the docket, and the case was terminated long before any trial could take place.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no evidence that JPMorgan Chase or any related entity filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. Such a filing is a common defensive strategy in patent litigation, and its absence further supports the theory of a very early resolution.

• Outcome & Final Disposition (Likely 2023): While the official status of the case is listed as "Unknown" in several public litigation databases, the complete lack of any docket activity after the initial complaint strongly implies that the parties reached a confidential settlement. This would have resulted in the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., filing a stipulation of dismissal, likely with prejudice, which formally ends the case. This is a standard procedure in nuisance-value or cost-of-defense settlements, which are frequent in NPE litigation against large corporations. The specific terms of any such settlement would not be public. As of May 4, 2026, the case is considered closed.

Based on docket information and the plaintiff's litigation history, the counsel of record for Disintermedation Services Inc. is the Delaware-based intellectual property firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. The complaint filed on November 30, 2022, identifies the following attorneys from the firm representing the plaintiff.

While the specific attorneys who have entered an appearance in this case are not available in publicly accessible records, the firm's partners typically lead such cases.

Probable Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis
  Role: Lead Counsel
  Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  Note: Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously practiced at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C. before co-founding his current firm. He has litigated patent cases in key jurisdictions, including the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas, and is frequently recognized as a leading patent litigator.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt
  Role: Lead Counsel
  Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  Note: Weinblatt has focused on intellectual property for over 20 years, beginning his career at an IP boutique before also joining Fish & Richardson, P.C., and later co-founding Stamoulis & Weinblatt. His practice concentrates on patent litigation and appellate work before the Federal Circuit, and he has been recognized for a notable win in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.

Defense Counsel for JPMorgan Chase & Co.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, JPMorgan Chase & Co., has not been publicly identified in available online records for the case Disintermedation Services Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 1:22-cv-01565 (D. Del.).

Extensive searches of court records, legal news databases, and other public sources have not revealed any notices of appearance or other filings that name the specific attorneys or law firms representing the defendant in this matter. It is possible that counsel has not yet formally appeared, that initial filings are under seal, or that the case has had no publicly reported activity revealing this information.

While major Delaware law firms such as Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP frequently serve as local counsel for large corporations in Delaware patent litigation, there is no specific information at this time to confirm their involvement in this particular case.