Disintermedation Services Inc. v. The Progressive Corporation

This patent infringement suit features a non-practicing entity (NPE), Disintermedation Services Inc., asserting a patent against a major operating company, The Progressive Corporation. Public records indicate Disintermedation Services is a patent assertion entity that has filed numerous lawsuits against companies across various sectors, including banking and retail, using patents from the same family as the one in this case. The defendant, The Progressive Corporation, is one of the largest auto insurers in the United States, headquartered in Mayfield Village, Ohio. Progressive is a sophisticated party in intellectual property matters, having previously asserted its own patents related to usage-based insurance and defended against infringement claims. The technology at issue is Progressive's customer-facing web communication platforms, such as the online chat functions that allow customers to interact with agents or automated systems. While a specific complaint is not publicly available for this exact case number and defendant, the asserted patent's subject matter points to these services as the accused instrumentality.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This venue is appropriate and unsurprising given that Progressive's corporate headquarters is located within the district. The presiding judge is likely Senior District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., who has been on the bench since his appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1994. The lawsuit asserts 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 chat conversation where a user's request is handled by a first responder and can then be transferred to a second, different responder without revealing the second responder's contact information.

This case is notable primarily as part of a broad assertion campaign by an NPE against a technology—web-based customer service chat—that is nearly ubiquitous among large enterprises. The validity of the '183 patent may become a key issue. In September 2024, Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by NPEs, announced it had awarded $2,000 to researchers for submitting prior art against the '183 patent. Such crowdsourcing efforts often precede the filing of an inter partes review (IPR) petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate the patent, though no IPR is publicly visible as of this analysis. It should be noted that some public litigation databases associate case number 1:22-cv-01094 with a different, quickly settled defendant, suggesting a potential clerical error in public records or a refiling of the case. However, based on the authoritative case metadata, Progressive is the defendant of record.

Legal analysis of key developments in Disintermedation Services Inc. v. The Progressive Corporation

Case Summary:
Disintermedation Services Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against The Progressive Corporation on June 24, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case, assigned docket number 1:22-cv-01094, asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. A detailed public record of the litigation's progression is limited, suggesting a swift resolution before any significant court actions or rulings occurred.

Key Developments and Outcome:

Based on available information, the key legal developments in this case were minimal, indicating a likely early settlement and dismissal.

• Filing of Complaint (2022-06-24): Disintermedation Services Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint alleging that The Progressive Corporation infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183.

• Subsequent Proceedings and Probable Outcome: There is no publicly available information regarding The Progressive Corporation's answer to the complaint, any counterclaims, or substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. The case did not advance to significant litigation milestones like a Markman claim construction hearing, summary judgment, or trial.

The absence of any publicly accessible docket entries for substantive motions or court orders strongly suggests that the parties entered into settlement negotiations shortly after the complaint was filed. The matter was likely resolved through a confidential settlement agreement, which would have resulted in the filing of a stipulation of dismissal, often without prejudice, terminating the case. This common outcome in patent litigation, particularly involving non-practicing entities, would explain why the case status is listed as "Unknown" in some databases and why no further proceedings are documented.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,240,183. The absence of a PTAB challenge is consistent with an early settlement of the district court litigation, as defendants often agree to forgo filing IPRs as a condition of the settlement.

In conclusion, all available evidence points to an early and private resolution of this patent dispute, with the case likely being dismissed pursuant to a settlement before any significant litigation events took place.

Counsel for Plaintiff Disintermedation Services Inc.

While court records for the specific case Disintermedation Services Inc. v. The Progressive Corporation, 1:22-cv-01094 (N.D. Ohio) do not publicly identify the plaintiff's counsel due to the case's swift termination on July 7, 2022, analysis of parallel litigation filed by Disintermedation Services Inc. reveals a consistent legal team. The attorneys most likely to have represented the plaintiff are from the firms Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA, who have appeared in other patent cases for the company.

Based on filings in related cases, such as Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. LiveAdmins, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-06539 (N.D. Ill.), the following attorneys represent the plaintiff and were the likely counsel in the Ohio action:

Lead Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property and frequently represents patent plaintiffs in federal courts nationwide, including the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A registered patent attorney with over 20 years of experience, he has a background in patent prosecution and has handled litigation across a wide array of technologies.

Local Counsel

Given the case was filed in the Northern District of Ohio, it is highly probable that local counsel from the Ohio-based firm Sand, Sebolt & Wernow was engaged. This firm specializes in intellectual property and patent litigation. While the specific attorney who would have appeared is not confirmed in the available records for this case, attorneys from this firm have served this role in other Disintermedation Services cases.

• Name: Brian E. Noga (Likely)
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA (Canton, OH)
  • Note: Information on his specific litigation experience is not detailed in the available search results, but his firm is specialized in IP litigation.

It is important to note that the defendant in case number 1:22-cv-01094 appears to have been 4Walls.com, Ltd., not The Progressive Corporation, as listed in the initial query. The case was filed on June 21, 2022, and was terminated on July 7, 2022.

Counsel for Defendant The Progressive Corporation Not Publicly Identified

As of May 4, 2026, the specific attorneys who have formally appeared to represent the defendant, The Progressive Corporation, in the patent infringement lawsuit Disintermedation Services Inc. v. The Progressive Corporation, 1:22-cv-01094, in the Northern District of Ohio, could not be identified through publicly available web search resources.

Information regarding counsel of record is typically found in documents filed with the court, such as a notice of appearance. These filings are maintained in the court's official docket, which is not fully accessible through general web searches. Searches of legal news databases and other public records did not yield specific attorney names for the defendant in this case.

While law firms with strong intellectual property litigation practices in Ohio, such as Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, are known to represent large corporations in patent disputes, there is no specific public record linking this or any other firm to The Progressive Corporation in this particular matter. Without access to the court docket, any identification of defense counsel would be speculative.