Disintermediation Services v. Living Spaces Furniture — Dismissed With Prejudice
Disintermediation Services, Inc. asserted four patents covering web-based chat systems against Living Spaces Furniture, LLC's customer chat platform at livingspaces.com. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas in December 2024, the case resolved and was dismissed with prejudice after 507 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Four chat-system patents, one furniture retailer, one dismissal
On December 13, 2024, Disintermediation Services, Inc. filed suit against Living Spaces Furniture, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-01045), asserting infringement of four US patents — US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 — all directed to web-based chat system technology. The accused product was the customer chat system deployed on Living Spaces' consumer-facing website, livingspaces.com.
The case closed on May 4, 2026, 507 days after filing. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), in which the parties represented that the case had been resolved and jointly requested dismissal with prejudice. The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, directing the clerk to close the case. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
A resolution reached inside 507 days — before any reported trial or merits ruling — is consistent with a negotiated outcome between the parties, though the specific terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed in the available public record. The with-prejudice character of the dismissal forecloses Disintermediation Services from refiling the same claims against Living Spaces on these four patents.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 507 days
507 days from filing to dismissal in E.D. Texas
US11240183B2 — web-based chat system technology (lead patent)
Any e-commerce or retail operator running a customer-facing chat system on its website should assess exposure to the Disintermediation Services patent family. The four asserted patents remain in force following the with-prejudice dismissal of the Living Spaces case. The dismissal resolves nothing about patent validity or infringement for third parties — it creates no estoppel or precedent that benefits other potential defendants.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepts and acknowledges a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation in which both parties represented the case had been 'resolved' and requested dismissal with prejudice. The order confirms all of plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs. The specific terms of any underlying resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation ends the case with prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a voluntary, jointly signed stipulation — no court order is required to take effect, though the court here accepted and acknowledged it. The 'with prejudice' designation is the operative legal consequence: Disintermediation Services cannot re-file these same patent claims against Living Spaces on these four patents in any federal court.
Voluntary, joint, with prejudicePlaintiff forfeits right to re-litigate these claims against Living Spaces
Disintermediation Services voluntarily joined the stipulation and cannot pursue the four asserted patents — US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 — against Living Spaces again. The with-prejudice bar is absolute as to this defendant. The patents themselves remain in force and could be asserted against other parties, subject to any broader terms of the underlying resolution, which are not disclosed in the public record.
Claims barred vs. Living SpacesLiving Spaces exits litigation without a costs award in its favour
Living Spaces Furniture secured dismissal with prejudice of all four patent claims, achieving finality on the asserted patents as they relate to its chat platform. However, each party bears its own legal costs, so Living Spaces receives no fee recovery despite the dismissal. The company's exposure to re-assertion of these specific patents by this plaintiff on these claims is eliminated.
Full dismissal, no cost recoveryChat-system patent risk remains for other retailers in this patent family
The four Disintermediation Services patents — covering web-based chat technology — survive intact and remain enforceable against third parties. Other e-commerce and furniture retailers operating customer chat systems on their websites should assess exposure to this patent family. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the Living Spaces dispute; it signals nothing about the merits of the underlying patents.
Patent family remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DISINTERMEDIATION SERVICES, INC. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLC | Company | /Search 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 | Cesar A Udave , I | Attorney | Counsel for LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Wynne Morehan | Attorney | Counsel for LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason R. Mudd | Attorney | Counsel for LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Justin Schletzbaum | Attorney | Counsel for LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary Martin Mass | Attorney | Counsel for LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP | Law Firm | Representing LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the web-based chat system patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for teams building or deploying customer chat technology, drawn from the Disintermediation Services portfolio and the broader web-chat IP landscape.
Disintermediation Services holds a coordinated four-patent chat portfolio
With four issued US patents from closely related application numbers (17/036709, 17/573056, 17/572958, 17/939730), Disintermediation Services appears to have built a layered portfolio around web-based chat system technology. Monitoring this assignee's pending applications and continuation activity could surface new claim coverage before additional enforcement actions are filed.
Assignee portfolio watchWeb-based chat patent filings are accelerating across e-commerce
Customer-facing chat systems — including AI-assisted chat, live agent routing, and hybrid models — are generating significant patent activity from both technology vendors and assertion entities. Teams building or procuring chat infrastructure should track filing trends in this domain to anticipate claim coverage that may not yet have surfaced in litigation.
Filing trend alertLiving Spaces' own patent position in retail technology
Understanding Living Spaces Furniture's patent portfolio and any filed IP relating to its customer experience technology can clarify whether the company has developed proprietary chat or digital interaction systems that may inform its defensive posture in future disputes. Analysing the defendant's own filings may reveal design choices relevant to similar retailers.
Defendant portfolio analysisDesign-around opportunities adjacent to the asserted chat patent claims
Given four issued patents covering web-based chat system technology, R&D teams building next-generation customer interaction tools — including AI chat agents, asynchronous messaging, or in-app chat — should map claim boundaries to identify implementation approaches that fall outside the asserted claim scope. White-space analysis near these patent families may surface defensible architectural alternatives.
Design-around intelligenceSimilar web-based chat system patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving web-based chat and messaging technology asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against e-commerce and retail defendants.
What this case signals for the web-based chat IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit on four chat-system patents in E.D. Texas raises targeted questions for any e-commerce operator running customer chat technology.
With-prejudice dismissal forecloses re-assertion against Living Spaces only
The dismissal with prejudice is defendant-specific. Disintermediation Services retains the four asserted patents and remains free to assert them against other e-commerce or retail operators. Companies running similar chat systems on consumer-facing websites should not treat this resolution as a sector-wide clearance.
Four-patent family in web chat signals broad claim coverage strategy
Asserting four related patents — US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 — against a single accused product is consistent with a layered enforcement strategy designed to maximise coverage and complicate invalidity challenges. Competitors in the online retail chat space should map claim scope across all four patents, not just the lead patent.
DISINTERMEDIATION v LIVING — key questions answered
Disintermediation Services asserted four US patents: US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2. All four relate to web-based chat system technology and were asserted against the customer chat system operating on Living Spaces Furniture's website, livingspaces.com, in Case No. 2:24-cv-01045 in the Eastern District of Texas.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation in which both parties represented the case had been resolved and requested dismissal with prejudice. All of plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice means Disintermediation Services cannot re-file the same patent claims against Living Spaces Furniture. However, the four asserted patents — US11240183B2, US11336597B1, US11349787B2, and US11855937B2 — remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. The dismissal creates no binding finding on validity or infringement for any third party.
No. The dismissal with prejudice operates only between Disintermediation Services and Living Spaces Furniture. Other e-commerce or retail operators running customer chat systems on their websites remain potentially exposed to the four asserted patents. There is no invalidity finding or other merits ruling that would bar assertion against different defendants.
The Eastern District of Texas is a frequently selected venue for patent infringement cases, including those brought by patent assertion entities, due to its established patent docket procedures and scheduling practices. The public record for this case does not state specific reasons for the plaintiff's choice of venue beyond the court's jurisdictional competence.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.