Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Case Background: Insurtech Patent Asserted Against Industry Giant

This patent infringement lawsuit pits Disintermedation Services Inc., a patent assertion entity, against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, one of the largest insurance and financial services companies in the United States. Disintermedation Services Inc. appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE), a company that derives revenue from patent licensing and litigation rather than producing its own goods or services. The plaintiff has filed infringement suits against other companies in various district courts. The defendant, Nationwide, is a Fortune 100 company offering a wide range of insurance products, including auto, home, life, and business insurance across the country. The case centers on Nationwide's use of online communication technologies, which allegedly infringe on the plaintiff's patent for managing customer interactions.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. The '183 patent, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms," generally describes a system for managing web-based communications, such as customer service chats. The technology involves receiving a communication from a user, assigning a conversation identifier, and routing the conversation between different "responders" (e.g., a chatbot and a human agent) without revealing the second responder's contact information to the user. Disintermedation Services alleges that Nationwide's website and customer service platforms, which likely use similar chat and agent-routing functionalities, infringe upon this patent. The case was assigned to Judge Gene E.K. Pratter. The choice of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is noteworthy; while home to many technology and pharmaceutical companies, it is not a high-volume venue for patent litigation compared to districts like Delaware or the Eastern District of Texas.

The case is significant as it represents a broader trend of NPEs targeting the insurance industry's growing reliance on "insurtech" solutions to interact with customers. As major carriers like Nationwide heavily invest in digital platforms, mobile apps, and AI-driven customer service tools to streamline operations, they become more frequent targets for patent assertion. The outcome of this case could influence how other large insurance companies approach their digital communication strategies and manage the risk of similar patent infringement claims. The docket for this specific case (2:22-cv-02655) does not show significant recent activity, and its current status is not publicly detailed, which may suggest a confidential settlement or that the case is in a prolonged discovery phase. There is no public record of a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the '183 patent, which is a common strategy for defendants to challenge patent validity.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome Remain Undetermined

Case Status: As of May 4, 2026, the detailed procedural history and ultimate outcome of the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Disintermedation Services Inc. against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are not publicly available through web-based legal research resources.

The lawsuit was initiated on July 13, 2022, with Disintermedation Services Inc. asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. However, beyond the initial filing, there is a lack of accessible public records, such as the complaint, answer, substantive motions, or court orders, that would shed light on the key legal developments in the case.

Searches for a public docket, news reports, and litigation analytics for case number 2:22-cv-02655 have not yielded specific filings or a definitive status. One secondary source indicated that an "Opinion and Order" was issued by the court on January 11, 2023, but the content and subject matter of this order could not be located. Such an order, issued approximately six months after the complaint, could have addressed a preliminary motion, such as a motion to dismiss, which might have been dispositive.

There is no information available regarding a potential settlement, a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, or a final judgment by the court. Similarly, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database shows no records of Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed against the 11,240,183 patent, which might have influenced the district court litigation.

The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., is a known patent licensing and enforcement entity and has filed similar lawsuits against other companies asserting the same or related patents. This pattern of litigation is common for non-practicing entities, but it does not provide insight into the resolution of this specific case against Nationwide.

Without access to the official court docket via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service or more detailed reporting from specialized legal news outlets, a chronological summary of the case's significant events and its final disposition cannot be constructed. The current status remains unknown.

Based on available information, the following attorney is the likely counsel of record for the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc. Direct confirmation from the court docket was not available through public web searches, so this identification is based on strong circumstantial evidence.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Frank J. Bonini, Jr.
  • Role: Lead Counsel (presumed).
  • Firm: Bonini IP Law, LLC.
  • Location: Radnor, Pennsylvania.
  • Note: Mr. Bonini is an intellectual property attorney whose practice focuses on patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and he has represented clients before the U.S. Copyright Office. His location in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and specialization align with the nature and venue of the case.

Counsel for Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Based on a review of available legal databases and attorney professional profiles, the following attorneys have been identified as likely counsel for defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in this or similar litigation. No notice of appearance has been made publicly available on the court docket for this specific case, so this information is based on representations in similar matters and the attorneys' practice areas.

• Frederick H. Colen | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: The Webb Law Firm (Pittsburgh, PA)
  • Note: Mr. Colen is a highly experienced intellectual property litigator with decades of experience, particularly in patent litigation, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers for his work in intellectual property. His practice covers a wide range of IP matters, including patents, trademarks, and litigation.

• Richard D. Gable, Jr. | Local Counsel

  • Firm: Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP (Philadelphia, PA)
  • Note: Mr. Gable is a partner in his firm's Philadelphia office with extensive experience in insurance coverage litigation, including bad faith and extra-contractual claims. While his primary focus is on insurance law rather than patent law, his location and experience with complex commercial litigation make him a probable choice for local counsel in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

It is also common for a large corporation like Nationwide to involve its own in-house counsel in managing litigation. While specific individuals have not appeared on the docket, Nationwide maintains a substantial in-house legal team, including a trial division with seasoned litigation attorneys who oversee and manage cases like this one.