Disintermedation Services Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Case Overview: NPE Asserts Customer Service Chat Patent Against Telecom Giant

In a recent lawsuit, Disintermedation Services Inc. has targeted T-Mobile USA, Inc., one of the largest U.S. wireless carriers, for alleged patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), a classification supported by its pattern of litigation against companies across various sectors and its inclusion in prior art crowdsourcing contests by Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by NPEs. While some reports indicate Disintermedation Services has a history of developing and selling omnichannel communication software, its current focus appears to be patent licensing and enforcement. The defendant, T-Mobile, is a major operating company providing nationwide wireless voice and data services.

The lawsuit 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 web-based communications where a user on one platform (like a web browser) can interact with a first representative or bot, and then be seamlessly handed off to a second, different representative based on the conversation's content, without exposing the second representative's contact details. Given the patent's subject matter, the infringement allegations likely target T-Mobile's extensive customer service and engagement platforms. This includes the chat functions on its website, its in-app messaging support, and potentially its recently announced "IntentCX," an advanced AI-powered customer experience platform developed in partnership with OpenAI.

The case (2:25-cv-00772) is filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has long been a hotbed for patent litigation due to its local rules and experienced judiciary, which are often perceived as favorable to patent holders. The case's notability stems from several factors. It represents a common pattern of NPEs targeting well-capitalized technology and telecommunications companies with patents covering broadly applicable software functions like customer service chat. Furthermore, the timing of the suit coincides with a significant industry-wide push into advanced, AI-driven customer engagement tools, making the scope of infringement claims potentially very broad. The validity of the asserted patent has been questioned by Unified Patents, which initiated a PATROLL contest seeking prior art to challenge the '183 patent, indicating that the strength of the asserted patent is a key issue to watch.

Case Developments: Incorrect Defendant in Case Record, Actual Suit Dismissed

Analyst Note: A significant discrepancy exists between the case metadata provided and official court records. While the prompt identifies the defendant as T-Mobile USA, Inc., court documents for case number 2:25-cv-00772 in the Eastern District of Texas unequivocally name the defendant as The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Some public litigation databases appear to have erroneous entries linking T-Mobile to this case number. The following legal developments pertain to the actual case on the docket, Disintermedation Services, Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. There is no verifiable record of a case captioned Disintermedation Services Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. with this specific case number.

Based on a review of court orders, the litigation between Disintermedation Services and Goodyear was short-lived, concluding with a settlement and dismissal less than a year after its filing.

Key Legal Developments (Case No. 2:25-cv-00772)

• 2025-08-08: Complaint Filed
  Disintermedation Services, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint likely alleged that Goodyear's customer communication systems, such as website chat features, infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. This filing was part of a broader litigation campaign by Disintermedation Services, which filed suits against other companies like Carvana, LLC (2:25-cv-00771) and Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (2:25-cv-00773) on the same day.

• April 2026: Settlement and Dismissal
  The case did not proceed to any substantive pre-trial milestones such as a Markman hearing or summary judgment motions. Court records show that the parties reached a resolution.

• 2026-04-23: Joint Stipulation of Dismissal and Court Order
  Disintermedation Services and Goodyear filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with the court, indicating that they had resolved the matter. On the same day, Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed an order dismissing all claims and causes of action between the parties with prejudice. The order specified that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, bringing the litigation to a final end.

Outcome: The case was terminated via a likely settlement, the terms of which are not public. The dismissal with prejudice means Disintermedation Services cannot sue Goodyear again on the same grounds.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings: No Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant challenges appear to have been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by Goodyear against the 11,240,183 patent. A settlement was reached before such a filing would have become necessary for the defendant.

While the official notice of appearance for counsel in Disintermedation Services Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2:25-cv-00772) in the Eastern District of Texas is not yet publicly available through docket search tools, the plaintiff, Disintermedation Services Inc., has been represented by specific law firms in its other recent patent assertion campaigns. As non-practicing entities (NPEs) frequently retain the same legal teams across their lawsuits, the attorneys who have recently appeared for Disintermedation Services in other patent cases are the most likely counsel of record in the T-Mobile litigation.

Based on analysis of dockets from other jurisdictions, the following attorneys and firms have represented Disintermedation Services, Inc. and are likely to be involved in the present case:

Likely Plaintiff's Counsel

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

This Indiana-based intellectual property firm appeared for Disintermedation Services, Inc. in a 2022 patent infringement case filed in the Southern District of Indiana.

• Paul B. Overhauser | Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Overhauser Law Offices, LLC (Indianapolis, IN)
  • Note: Founder of the firm, focusing on patent and trademark litigation and prosecution with several decades of experience in intellectual property law.

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

As is common in patent litigation, an NPE may hire a national firm and supplement with local counsel where the suit is filed. In a 2025 declaratory judgment case brought by Intercom, Inc. in the District of Delaware, Disintermedation Services was represented by an attorney from this prominent Delaware firm.

• Sara M. Metzler | Of Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Focuses on commercial and intellectual property litigation in Delaware's federal and state courts and previously clerked for a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

It is important to note that until a notice of appearance is filed on the docket for case 2:25-cv-00772, this information remains a projection based on the plaintiff's established litigation patterns. The specific attorneys from these firms or an entirely different firm may ultimately appear as counsel of record in the Eastern District of Texas.

T-Mobile's Counsel of Record Not Yet Publicly Available

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, T-Mobile USA, Inc., has not yet formally appeared on the public docket for Disintermedation Services Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00772, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. No notice of appearance or answer to the complaint has been filed, which is not unusual in the early stages of a case.

Anticipated Defense Counsel

Based on T-Mobile's extensive patent litigation history in the Eastern District of Texas, the company is frequently represented by the law firm Alston & Bird LLP. The firm has secured multiple favorable verdicts for T-Mobile and other major telecommunications clients in this venue. Therefore, it is highly probable that attorneys from Alston & Bird will represent T-Mobile in this matter.

Key attorneys from Alston & Bird who have recently led T-Mobile's defense in high-stakes patent cases include:

• Name: Theodore "Ted" Stevenson

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Dallas, TX office)
  • Notable Experience: Stevenson led the Alston & Bird team that secured a complete defense verdict for T-Mobile and Ericsson in a $253 million patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas in April 2025 (General Access Solutions Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00158).

• Name: John D. Haynes

  • Role: Likely Lead or Senior Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta, GA office)
  • Notable Experience: Haynes was a key partner on the team representing T-Mobile in its successful defense in the General Access Solutions case and has extensive experience in complex patent litigation.

• Name: Scott Stevens

  • Role: Likely Senior Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Charlotte, NC office)
  • Notable Experience: Also a member of the trial team that achieved the April 2025 defense verdict for T-Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Deron Dacus

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, TX office)
  • Notable Experience: Served as co-counsel with the Alston & Bird team in the General Access Solutions case, providing local expertise in the Eastern District of Texas.

This analysis is based on established litigation patterns, and the official counsel of record will be confirmed once a notice of appearance is filed on the case docket.