Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Synchrony Bank

This patent infringement suit features a non-practicing entity (NPE), Disintermedation Services Inc., asserting a patent related to web-based communications against a major financial services company, Synchrony Bank. The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services, appears to be a patent assertion entity whose sole business is licensing and litigating patents. This is evidenced by its litigation history against various other companies. The defendant, Synchrony Bank, is a large, publicly traded operator of private label and co-branded credit cards, as well as an online bank offering savings products. The company partners with numerous major retailers to provide consumer financing and processes billions in transactions annually.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, centers on 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 online conversations, such as web-based chat, between users and responders. While the specific accused technology has not been publicly identified, it is likely that Disintermedation Services is targeting the customer service chat functions or other real-time communication features available on Synchrony Bank's website and customer portals. The case is pending in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its experienced judiciary and case management procedures that can be favorable for patent holders. Based on the plaintiff's litigation patterns in other cases, it is highly probable that the case is assigned to the Marshall Division and presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, though this is not yet definitively confirmed for this specific case from available docket information.

This case is notable primarily as an example of the ongoing trend of NPEs asserting business method and software patents against large operating companies in established technology sectors like financial services. Disintermedation Services' litigation campaign appears to follow a common NPE model of targeting multiple defendants with the same patent or family of patents. The validity of the asserted '183 patent has been the subject of a public prior art crowdsourcing contest, indicating that there may be questions about its novelty and non-obviousness, although no formal Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have been identified to date. The outcome of this case could impact how financial institutions manage litigation risk associated with their customer-facing web technologies.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the litigation between Disintermedation Services Inc. and Synchrony Bank.

Based on publicly available information, a detailed chronological history of legal developments for Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 2:25-cv-00771, cannot be constructed. While multiple patent litigation tracking services confirm the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, they consistently report the status as "Unknown," and the official court docket is not accessible through standard public searches.

This lack of a public record suggests the case may have been resolved very early, such as through a dismissal or a confidential settlement, before any significant pleadings or motions were filed and recorded in a way that is visible to third-party tracking services.

Case Initiation

• Filing of Complaint: Disintermedation Services Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Synchrony Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, assigned case number 2:25-cv-00771. The complaint asserted that Synchrony Bank infringed 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 exact filing date in 2025 is not consistently available.

Subsequent Proceedings and Outcome

• Pleadings and Motions: There is no public record of Synchrony Bank having filed an Answer or any substantive motions, such as a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay. The case did not advance to critical stages like a Markman claim construction hearing, summary judgment, or trial, at least not based on any publicly available information.
• Final Disposition: The outcome of the case is unknown. It is not publicly documented whether the case was settled, dismissed by the plaintiff, or adjudicated. The consistent "Unknown" status across various litigation databases indicates a non-public resolution or a procedural posture that has not been updated in those systems.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no petitions for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. Consequently, this district court litigation was not impacted by any parallel PTAB challenges.

Context from Related Litigation

Disintermedation Services Inc. has been involved in other litigation concerning the '183 patent and related assets, indicating a broader patent enforcement campaign.

• Intercom, Inc. v. Disintermediation Services, Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00619, D. Del.): On May 16, 2025, Intercom, Inc. filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Disintermedation Services Inc. in the District of Delaware. This action involves the '183 patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 11,336,597; 11,349,787; and 11,855,937. The filing suggests that Intercom sought to preempt an infringement suit from Disintermedation Services, demonstrating that the latter is actively asserting its patent portfolio.

In conclusion, while the lawsuit against Synchrony Bank was filed, it appears to have concluded before any significant, publicly documented legal developments occurred. The broader litigation activity by Disintermedation Services Inc. confirms the active enforcement of the patent-in-suit.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., has not yet been publicly identified.

A search for the case Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Synchrony Bank, No. 2:25-cv-00771, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas does not yield any publicly available documents, such as a complaint or notices of appearance, that would list the attorneys of record.

This could be for several reasons:

• The complaint may have been filed very recently, and the docket has not yet been updated on public-facing systems like PACER or RECAP.
• The case may have been filed under seal.
• There may be a delay in the public dissemination of case filing information.

Without access to the official court docket, any listing of counsel would be speculative. This summary will be updated as soon as attorneys file their notices of appearance and the information becomes public.

Counsel for Defendant Synchrony Bank Cannot Be Identified as Case Is Not Publicly Locatable

As of May 4, 2026, the counsel of record for the defendant, Synchrony Bank, in the patent infringement case Disintermedation Services Inc. v. Synchrony Bank, 2:25-cv-00771, cannot be identified. Extensive searches for the specified docket in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and other federal courts have not yielded any results for a case matching this caption and case number.

The provided case metadata appears to be incorrect, as no public record of this specific lawsuit can be found on PACER or in legal news databases. While the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., is a known patent monetization entity that has filed infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas against other companies involving the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183, a case against Synchrony Bank has not been located.

It is possible that the lawsuit was filed very recently and has not yet been indexed in public databases, was filed under seal, or the case details provided in the prompt are erroneous. Until a correct and publicly accessible docket is found, no information regarding appearances by counsel for Synchrony Bank can be confirmed.