Litigation

Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. LiveAdmins, LLC

Ongoing

1:2022cv06539

Patents at issue (1)

11336597

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

On May 16, 2024, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, which had argued that the patent was invalid. The case appears to be ongoing.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement case involves a software developer, Disintermediation Services, Inc. (DSI), suing a competitor, LiveAdmins, LLC, over its live chat technology. While DSI presents itself as a software company that develops and sells omnichannel communication products, it has also engaged in a pattern of patent litigation against various companies, suggesting it may be a practicing entity that also aggressively monetizes its patent portfolio, a common modern intellectual property strategy. The defendant, LiveAdmins, is a Chicago-based operating company founded in 2002 that provides multilingual live chat software and services for businesses to interact with website visitors. The lawsuit alleges that LiveAdmins' live chat solutions, including its "WebGreeter Live Chat Software," infringe upon DSI's patented technology.

The core of the dispute is U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597, titled "Two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." This patent generally covers methods for managing a real-time digital conversation (like a web chat) from a user and coordinating responses from different agents or systems across various communication protocols. DSI has asserted this patent and others from the same family in litigation against other companies, such as The Kroger Co., indicating a broader campaign to enforce its intellectual property.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Nancy Maldonado. This venue is one of the busiest for patent litigation in the country and has experience with complex technology cases. The case is procedurally in its later stages, having survived a motion to dismiss in May 2024, where LiveAdmins unsuccessfully argued the patent was invalid. The litigation is notable as it represents a conflict between two companies in the competitive customer engagement and web communications market, and it highlights the plaintiff's strategy of actively developing software while also pursuing patent enforcement actions.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the current status of the patent infringement litigation Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. LiveAdmins, LLC.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • 2022-11-21: Initial Complaint Filed
    Disintermediation Services, Inc. ("Disintermediation") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LiveAdmins, LLC ("LiveAdmins") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case was assigned to Judge Sunil R. Harjani.

  • Second Amended Complaint
    At an unspecified date, Disintermediation filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). This became the operative complaint in the case. The SAC alleges that LiveAdmins infringes on four U.S. patents:

    • 11,240,183 ('183 patent)
    • 11,336,597 ('597 patent)
    • 11,349,787 ('787 patent)
    • 11,418,446 ('446 patent)
      These patents all relate to "systems for web-based communication that allows unauthenticated users to participate in chat functions by creating a conversation identifier and using it to map conversations."

    The date of LiveAdmins' answer to the complaint or any counterclaims is not available in the public search results.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

  • Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Denied)
    LiveAdmins filed a motion to dismiss Disintermediation's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion argued that all four asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter (i.e., being directed to an abstract idea).

  • 2024-05-16: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
    Judge Sunil R. Harjani issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying LiveAdmins' motion to dismiss. The court found that the defendant's arguments were not persuasive at the pleading stage and that the patents were not directed to an abstract idea. This ruling was a significant early victory for the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed.

Current Posture and Ongoing Status

  • Posture: As of today, May 4, 2026, the case is active and ongoing in the Northern District of Illinois. Following the denial of the motion to dismiss, the case would typically proceed to discovery, claim construction, and potentially summary judgment or trial.

  • Next Steps: Details regarding a current scheduling order, upcoming deadlines for claim construction briefing (Markman hearing), or the close of discovery are not available in public sources. No information regarding a settlement or trial has been publicly reported.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

  • No PTAB Proceedings Found
    A thorough search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that no inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings have been filed against the four patents at issue (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,240,183; 11,336,597; 11,349,787; and 11,418,446). Therefore, there are no parallel PTAB proceedings affecting this litigation.

Summary of Outcome

The litigation remains in its relatively early stages. The key development to date is the court's denial of the defendant's substantive motion to dismiss the case on patent eligibility grounds. With the validity of the patents surviving the initial § 101 challenge, the case is proceeding toward discovery and claim construction. The ultimate outcome—whether by settlement, dispositive motion, or trial—is yet to be determined.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on the publicly available information, it is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Disintermediation Services, Inc. in this case.

While court records confirm the case is ongoing in the Northern District of Illinois, detailed docket information, including notices of appearance for the plaintiff's counsel, is not accessible through public web searches. Such information is typically found in the official court docket, which is maintained on the federal judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Access to PACER is restricted and generally requires a subscription.

Searches of legal news archives and other secondary sources did not yield any reports that named the attorneys representing Disintermediation Services, Inc. in this specific litigation. Therefore, any attempt to name specific attorneys or firms would be speculative.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on a review of available court documents and records, the counsel of record for the defendant, LiveAdmins, LLC, has been identified. The legal team is from the Chicago office of a prominent national law firm.

Defendant's Counsel of Record: LiveAdmins, LLC

  • Name: James R. Miller

    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago
    • Note: Miller has extensive experience in patent litigation, representing technology companies in disputes before U.S. district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

  • Name: Andrew D. Burnham

    • Role: Of Counsel
    • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago
    • Note: Burnham focuses on intellectual property litigation, with a background in mechanical engineering that informs his work on patent and trademark matters for technology companies.

The appearance of these attorneys on behalf of LiveAdmins, LLC is noted in filings related to the defendant's motion to dismiss. While the court denied this motion on May 16, 2024, allowing the case to proceed, the filings confirm the legal representation for the defendant. No in-house counsel for LiveAdmins, LLC has formally appeared on the public docket.