Disintermediation Services v. Bath & Body Works: Dismissed With Prejudice in 111 Days
Disintermediation Services, Inc. sued Bath & Body Works, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas asserting four patents covering website chat and agent-availability systems. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 111 days after filing — before the defendant had answered the complaint.
A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice: what drove the swift exit?
Disintermediation Services, Inc. (DSI) filed this patent infringement action on September 12, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Bath & Body Works, LLC, targeting the chat system deployed on Bath & Body Works’ consumer website (bathandbodyworks.com). DSI asserted four US patents — US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 — all directed to online chat routing and agent-availability technology, which DSI also commercialises through its own platform at isavailable.com.
The case closed on January 1, 2025 when DSI filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), representing that all claims were dismissed with prejudice. Because Bath & Body Works had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-executing under Rule 41, requiring only court acknowledgment. The court accepted the notice, denied all pending relief as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case. Crucially, the parties agreed to bear their own costs and fees.
The 111-day lifespan and the prejudice designation together are notable. A with-prejudice dismissal at plaintiff’s own election — before any substantive litigation — suggests a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision not to proceed, rather than a simple mis-filing. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licence agreement, or consent to judgement, leaving the commercial rationale opaque. R&D teams and IP counsel monitoring DSI’s enforcement posture across its chat-technology portfolio should note that the prejudice bar forecloses these four patents against Bath & Body Works specifically.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 111 days
111 days — resolved before defendant answered; well under median E.D. Tex. patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-executing dismissal before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss its own action without a court order if filed before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. Where the notice specifies ‘with prejudice,’ that election is binding. The court here accepted and acknowledged the notice — confirming the dismissal’s effect rather than granting it — and closed the case. No merits ruling was made.
Pre-answer voluntary exitWith prejudice bars any re-filing on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. DSI cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Bath & Body Works under US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, or US11855937B2 in any court. This is a materially stronger outcome for the defendant than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the threat open. The public record does not disclose why DSI chose this irrevocable route.
Res judicata — re-filing barredDSI retains patent rights but forfeits this enforcement avenue
DSI’s patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties — only the specific claims against Bath & Body Works are extinguished. DSI, which operates an active chat-routing platform at isavailable.com, may continue asserting these patents against other defendants. The with-prejudice election suggests either a licensing resolution occurred privately, or DSI concluded the claim was not commercially viable to litigate to judgment.
Patents survive; one defendant immunisedRetailers using third-party chat systems should monitor DSI’s portfolio
DSI’s four asserted patents cover online chat routing and agent-availability systems — infrastructure used broadly across e-commerce. The swift resolution without a merits ruling means no claim construction or validity analysis entered the public record, leaving legal uncertainty for other retailers. Companies operating similar website chat systems should assess exposure to the four asserted patents, as DSI retains full enforcement rights against non-Bath & Body Works targets.
Ongoing portfolio risk for e-commerceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DISINTERMEDIATION SERVICES, INC. | Company | Online chat routing technology licensor — holder of US11240183B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bath & Body Works, LLC | Company | Bath & Body Works, LLC — major US specialty retail and e-commerce operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David P. Berten | Attorney | Counsel for DISINTERMEDIATION SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Healy | Attorney | Counsel for DISINTERMEDIATION SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Global IP Law Group LLC | Law Firm | Representing DISINTERMEDIATION SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryan P. Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Bath & Body Works, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kent E. Baldauf , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Bath & Body Works, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Webb Law Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Bath & Body Works, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts DSI’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice as self-executing, confirming rather than granting the dismissal — a procedurally significant distinction. The explicit with-prejudice designation, chosen by DSI itself, forecloses any re-assertion of the four patents against Bath & Body Works. The fee-neutrality clause (each party bears its own costs) is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral capitulation. No merits finding, claim construction, or validity ruling was made.
US11240183B2 — Online chat routing and agent-availability systems
US11240183B2, the lead asserted patent, was filed under application number US17/036709 and covers systems for routing online chat interactions based on real-time agent availability — technology directly applicable to the customer-service chat interfaces deployed by major e-commerce operators. DSI’s three co-asserted patents (US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2) appear to cover related aspects of the same technology family, suggesting a continuation or divisional strategy designed to create layered claim coverage around the core routing and availability concept.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its breadth: website-based live chat and availability-routing systems are near-universal in consumer-facing e-commerce, retail, financial services, and SaaS. DSI’s simultaneous assertion of four patents — and its operation of a commercial platform (isavailable.com) — signals a dual-track approach combining product commercialisation with licensing enforcement. For sector participants, the absence of any court-issued claim construction means the patents’ practical scope remains ambiguous and potentially broad, making proactive FTO analysis against the full DSI portfolio a priority for any company operating comparable chat infrastructure.
Should you run an FTO against US11240183B2 and DSI’s chat-routing portfolio?
Any company operating a website chat system — particularly in retail, e-commerce, or customer service — should treat DSI’s four-patent portfolio as a live FTO consideration. The pre-answer dismissal in this case produced no claim construction or invalidity findings, meaning the legal scope of these patents is untested and the presumption of validity stands intact. Bath & Body Works’ resolution does not extend to other defendants, and DSI’s continued operation of isavailable.com suggests ongoing commercialisation of the underlying technology.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their chat-system architecture against the claim language in US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 simultaneously. Eureka can surface prior art, identify continuation relationships within DSI’s portfolio, and flag claim elements most likely to read on commercially deployed chat-routing implementations — giving counsel and product teams the evidence base needed to assess risk and inform design-around strategies before any enforcement notice arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11240183B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar chat-system and e-commerce patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving online chat, agent-routing, and customer-availability patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas — the same court and technology domain as this DSI action.
What this case signals for the online chat and e-commerce IP landscape
A rapid, pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas — with each side bearing its own costs — suggests a quiet settlement or strategic withdrawal worth watching.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice typically signal private resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, the most commercially rational explanation is a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue reached out of court. No financial terms were disclosed. IP counsel advising retailers should assume DSI’s enforcement campaign is ongoing against other targets.
DSI’s four-patent portfolio targets mainstream e-commerce chat infrastructure
All four asserted patents relate to chat routing and agent-availability systems — technology embedded in customer service stacks across retail, banking, and SaaS. The lack of any merits ruling means validity and claim scope are untested publicly. Any company operating a comparable chat interface should consider an FTO review against DSI’s portfolio.
DISINTERMEDIATION v Bath — key questions answered
Disintermediation Services, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Bath & Body Works, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas on September 12, 2024, asserting four patents directed to website chat routing and agent-availability systems. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by DSI under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on January 1, 2025, 111 days after filing and before the defendant had answered the complaint.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata. DSI cannot re-assert the four patents — US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 — against Bath & Body Works in any future proceeding. However, the patents remain valid and enforceable against other defendants, and DSI retains full rights to pursue third parties.
DSI asserted four US patents: US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2. All are directed to online chat routing and agent-availability systems. The accused product was Bath & Body Works’ website chat system at bathandbodyworks.com. DSI also referenced its own commercial platform at isavailable.com as embodying the patented technology.
No settlement was publicly disclosed. The public record shows only a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by DSI, with each party bearing its own costs. The with-prejudice designation and the pre-answer timing are consistent with a private licensing resolution, but no terms were filed with the court and the commercial rationale remains undisclosed.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to dismiss its own action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Bath & Body Works had not yet answered, DSI’s notice was self-executing. The court acknowledged — rather than granted — the dismissal, confirming this procedural distinction. DSI’s election to make the dismissal ‘with prejudice’ was its own choice and created a permanent bar to re-filing.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.