Intercom, Inc. v. Disintermediation Services, Inc.

This declaratory judgment action represents a proactive legal strategy by an operating company against a patent assertion entity (PAE). Plaintiff Intercom, Inc. is a well-known technology company that provides a popular AI-powered customer service and engagement platform, offering tools like live chat, automated chatbots, and targeted messaging for businesses. Defendant Disintermediation Services, Inc. appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or PAE, a company whose business model focuses on licensing and enforcing patents rather than producing goods or services. This is suggested by its pattern of asserting patents against numerous companies in the tech sector. The dispute centers on Intercom's customer communication platform, which Disintermediation Services alleges infringes its patent rights. By filing for a declaratory judgment, Intercom is asking the court to rule that it does not infringe the asserted patent and/or that the patent is invalid, a common move by companies to gain control of litigation timing and venue when faced with what they consider baseless infringement accusations.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a significant venue for patent litigation due to its judges' expertise in patent law and the high number of U.S. corporations incorporated there. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597, which, based on related patents in the same family assigned to the defendant, generally relates to a "two-way real time communication system that allows asymmetric participation in conversations across multiple electronic platforms." This technology appears to read on the core functionalities of modern web-based chat and customer service platforms. The case is notable as it exemplifies a larger trend of operating companies in the software industry being targeted by PAEs. It also highlights the strategic use of declaratory judgment actions as a defensive measure to preempt an infringement lawsuit from a patent holder in a less favorable jurisdiction.

As of May 4, 2026, the patent litigation between Intercom, Inc. and Disintermediation Services, Inc. in the District of Delaware remains in its early stages. According to the most recent available court records, a significant dispositive motion is pending before the court, and there have been no major developments such as a claim construction hearing, trial, or final judgment.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

Intercom, Inc. initiated the lawsuit on 2025-05-16, by filing a complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Disintermediation Services, Inc. The action, docketed as Case No. 1:2025cv00619, seeks a ruling that Intercom does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597, as well as three other related patents ('183, '787, and '937). The case was assigned to Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly.

Pre-Trial Motions

Instead of filing an answer, Disintermediation Services, Inc. responded to the complaint on 2025-07-18 by filing a Motion to Stay, Dismiss, or Transfer. The briefing on this motion concluded in August 2025. Intercom filed its opposition brief on 2025-08-08, and Disintermediation Services filed its reply on 2025-08-15. Intercom subsequently filed a request for oral argument on the motion on 2025-08-22.

As of the latest available information, the court has not yet issued a ruling on this potentially case-dispositive motion. The resolution of this motion will determine whether the case will be stayed (potentially pending developments in other litigation involving the same patents), dismissed, transferred to a different venue, or proceed in the District of Delaware.

Subsequent Developments and Current Status

There is no public record of a settlement or a final disposition of the case. A litigation summary source indicated that as of 2026-04-28, the case was still in its "early stages," which is consistent with the pending motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer.

Parallel Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records did not reveal any inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,336,597.

Disintermediation Services, Inc. has been identified as a patent assertion entity and has filed infringement lawsuits involving the same family of patents against other companies in various districts. In one such case, Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. LiveAdmins, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, the court denied a motion to dismiss patents from the same family as the '597 patent on the grounds that they were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling suggests that the patent claims have survived an initial patent-eligibility challenge in at least one other court.

In summary, the litigation is currently awaiting a decision from Chief Judge Connolly on the defendant's motion to stay, dismiss, or transfer, which will dictate the future course of the case.

Based on available docket information and attorney biographies, the following counsel represent the plaintiff, Intercom, Inc., in its declaratory judgment action against Disintermediation Services, Inc.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

This firm appears to be serving as lead counsel for Intercom, Inc.

• Name: Jason R. Mudd

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Location: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO.
  • Note: Mudd is a registered patent attorney who focuses on complex IP disputes and was recognized as an "IP Trailblazer" for arguing the first-ever inter partes review (IPR) before the USPTO.

• Name: Ryan J. Schletzbaum

  • Role: Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Location: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO.
  • Note: Schletzbaum is an IP litigator with extensive experience in patent, trademark, and trade secret cases involving technologies such as telecommunications, software, and smartphones.

• Name: Zachary M. Mass

  • Role: Counsel (Associate)
  • Firm & Location: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO.
  • Note: A registered patent attorney with a background in software engineering, Mass focuses his practice on IP litigation.

Morris James LLP

This firm is serving as local counsel in the District of Delaware, a common requirement for out-of-state lead counsel.

• Name: Kenneth L. Dorsney

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Location: Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Dorsney is a registered patent attorney and Chair of his firm's Intellectual Property Practice, frequently handling complex patent litigation in the District of Delaware.

• Name: Cortlan S. Hitch

  • Role: Local Counsel (Associate)
  • Firm & Location: Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Hitch's practice is concentrated on patent and trademark litigation within the District of Delaware, and a docket entry confirms he has filed documents in this case.

As of today's date, May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Disintermediation Services, Inc., has not been publicly identified on the docket for the declaratory judgment action Intercom, Inc. v. Disintermediation Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Publicly available docket information for this case, No. 1:25-cv-00619, appears to be out of date and does not reflect a notice of appearance for the defendant.

However, based on counsel of record in other recent patent litigation initiated by Disintermediation Services, Inc. involving the same family of patents, the company's legal representation can be identified with a high degree of confidence.

Likely Lead Counsel

Based on representation in parallel litigation, the following attorney is the likely lead counsel for Disintermediation Services, Inc. in this matter:

• Name: Sean Joseph Quinn
  • Role: Lead Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm: Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Americus, Farkas & Brocato LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • Note on Experience: Mr. Quinn represented Disintermediation Services, Inc. as plaintiff in Disintermediation Services, Inc. v. Perq Software, LLC, Case No. 1:2022cv02280, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. His firm biography notes that he concentrates his practice on intellectual property portfolio development and complex commercial litigation, including handling trademark, copyright, and trade secret claims across the country.

Local Counsel

No Delaware-based local counsel can be identified from available information. In the District of Delaware, it is standard practice for out-of-state lead counsel to associate with a Delaware-admitted attorney who serves as local counsel. An appearance by local counsel would typically be filed along with or shortly after a responsive pleading to the complaint. Since no such filings are publicly visible, the identity of local counsel remains unknown.

It must be explicitly stated that while Sean Joseph Quinn is the probable counsel for Disintermediation Services, Inc., his formal appearance in the Delaware case has not been confirmed through available search resources. No other attorneys or firms could be identified as representing the defendant in this specific action.