LiveHelpNow v. tawk.to: Five-Patent Live Chat Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
LiveHelpNow, LLC filed suit against rival live chat provider tawk.to, Inc. in Nevada federal court, asserting five patents covering client session management over communication networks. After 427 days of litigation, the parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — permanently closing the door on these specific claims.
Live Chat Patent War Ends Quietly — But Permanently
LiveHelpNow, LLC filed this infringement action on 28 April 2023 in the District of Nevada against Tawk To, Inc. (tawk.to), a direct competitor in the live customer chat software market. At issue were five US patents — US10419372B2, US11283739B2, US9584375B2, US10951559B2, and US9178950B2 — collectively covering methods, systems, and apparatus for establishing and monitoring client sessions over communication networks, the technical core of live chat platform functionality.
The case closed on 28 June 2024 via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). Critically, the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning LiveHelpNow is permanently barred from re-asserting these same claims against tawk.to in federal court. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs, suggesting the resolution was negotiated and mutual rather than reflecting a clear winner or a damages payout in the public record.
The 427-day duration suggests the case progressed through at least early substantive proceedings before the parties reached their agreement — typical of disputes where claim construction or early dispositive motions help clarify litigation risk. The with-prejudice structure and self-bear cost allocation are consistent with a confidential settlement or a strategic withdrawal, though the public record does not confirm which. Whether a licensing arrangement was reached privately remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 427 days
427 days — longer than the median district court patent case resolution at first instance
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated termination means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. When filed with prejudice, it operates as a final adjudication on the merits — LiveHelpNow cannot re-file these same claims against tawk.to in any federal court. This is the strongest form of voluntary dismissal, carrying the same claim-preclusion effect as a court judgment.
Claim preclusion appliesLiveHelpNow permanently forfeits these claims against tawk.to
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, LiveHelpNow surrenders any future right to assert these five patents against tawk.to for the conduct alleged. This is a significant strategic concession — though it may reflect a confidential licensing agreement or commercial resolution reached privately. The public record does not disclose any damages payment or license terms.
No re-filing permittedtawk.to gains permanent shield from these five patent claims
tawk.to, represented by Cooley LLP, secures a with-prejudice dismissal — meaning these five LiveHelpNow session-management patents cannot be asserted against it again for the same accused conduct. The mutual cost-bearing provision also means tawk.to avoided any fee award. Whether the resolution included a paid license that secured this protection is not disclosed in the public record.
Permanent claim bar securedFive live chat patents remain active threats to the broader market
While tawk.to is now protected from these specific claims, LiveHelpNow’s five patents remain in force and enforceable against other live chat or customer messaging platform competitors. Companies operating in this space — particularly those offering session monitoring, multi-channel chat routing, or agent management systems — should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Livehelpnow, LLC | Company | Live chat software provider — holder of US10419372B2 and four related session management patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tawk To, Inc. | Company | tawk.to, Inc. — competing live chat and customer messaging platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John L. Krieger | Attorney | Counsel for Livehelpnow, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael N. Feder | Attorney | Counsel for Livehelpnow, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stanislav Torgovitsky | Attorney | Counsel for Livehelpnow, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Livehelpnow, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad R. Fears | Attorney | Counsel for Tawk To, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David W. Gutke | Attorney | Counsel for Tawk To, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Juan Pablo Gonzalez | Attorney | Counsel for Tawk To, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reuben H. Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Tawk To, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP (Library) | Law Firm | Representing Tawk To, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Evans Fears Schuttert McNulty Mickus | Law Firm | Representing Tawk To, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Nevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘Plaintiff’s claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice’ coupled with mutual cost-bearing — reflects a negotiated endpoint rather than a merits adjudication. The with-prejudice designation carries res judicata effect, foreclosing re-litigation of these claims against tawk.to. However, the absence of any damages finding or validity ruling means the five asserted patents remain unchallenged in this proceeding, preserving their enforceability against the wider market.
US10419372B2 — Live Chat Client Session Management Patent Portfolio
The five asserted patents — US10419372B2, US11283739B2, US9584375B2, US10951559B2, and US9178950B2 — span application dates from 2011 (US13/328691) through 2019 (US16/569776), indicating a deliberate continuation filing strategy designed to extend coverage as the underlying technology evolved. The patents collectively protect methods, systems, and apparatus for establishing, routing, and monitoring sessions between clients and agents over communication networks — the functional core of any live chat or customer engagement platform.
This portfolio’s breadth across session establishment, monitoring, and management layers creates substantial risk for any SaaS vendor operating in the customer communication or live chat space. The continuation structure means claims in later patents may be drafted to capture specific implementations that emerged after the original priority date — a common enforcement technique that makes FTO clearance difficult without analysing each patent’s independent and dependent claims individually against current product architectures.
Should your live chat platform run FTO analysis against these five patents?
Any company offering live chat, co-browsing, chatbot-to-agent handoff, or visitor session monitoring functionality should treat LiveHelpNow’s portfolio as a material FTO concern. The patents’ claims span session establishment and monitoring broadly — features that are architecturally common across the customer engagement software sector. The fact that LiveHelpNow has already demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court makes this a credible, not merely theoretical, risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five asserted patents’ independent claims against your product’s technical architecture, identify prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope, and surface prior art that could support invalidity arguments. For R&D teams building session management or routing features, Eureka’s claim-charting tools can flag design-around opportunities before a product ships — reducing litigation exposure at the earliest stage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10419372B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Live Chat & Session Management Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Federal patent cases involving live chat, session management, and customer communication network technology in U.S. district courts, comparable to this Nevada dispute.
What this case signals for the live chat software IP landscape
A five-patent assertion ending in a with-prejudice stipulation is a rare and telling outcome — here is what practitioners should take away.
With-prejudice stipulations often mask confidential licensing resolutions
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, it typically signals a negotiated commercial resolution rather than capitulation. IP professionals monitoring LiveHelpNow’s enforcement posture should treat this outcome as consistent with a private licensing deal, not a concession on patent validity.
Five-patent portfolio signals a layered enforcement strategy
Asserting five patents spanning application dates from 2011 to 2019 suggests LiveHelpNow has built a deliberate continuation portfolio around its core session-management technology. Other live chat competitors — especially those with session routing, visitor monitoring, or agent handoff features — face a structurally similar exposure profile to what tawk.to faced here.
Livehelpnow v Tawk — key questions answered
LiveHelpNow, LLC filed a patent infringement action against tawk.to, Inc. in the District of Nevada on 28 April 2023, asserting five patents covering live chat session management technology. The case closed on 28 June 2024 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. No public damages award or validity ruling was issued.
LiveHelpNow asserted five US patents: US10419372B2, US11283739B2, US9584375B2, US10951559B2, and US9178950B2. All relate to methods, systems, and apparatus for establishing and monitoring sessions with clients over a communication network — the core technology underlying live chat and customer engagement platforms.
A with-prejudice dismissal bars LiveHelpNow from re-asserting the same claims against tawk.to for the same accused conduct in any federal court — it carries the same claim-preclusion effect as a final judgment. However, it does not invalidate the patents, which remain enforceable against other defendants. If tawk.to launches materially new products, LiveHelpNow may theoretically assert the patents on new infringement theories.
The with-prejudice dismissal combined with a mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — potentially including a license agreement — though the public record does not confirm this. Such structures are commonly used when parties wish to avoid public disclosure of financial terms while achieving legal finality. No settlement terms have been publicly disclosed.
Yes. The dismissal protects only tawk.to from these specific claims. All five LiveHelpNow patents remain in force and have not been invalidated, narrowed, or challenged on the merits in this proceeding. Companies offering live chat, visitor session monitoring, or agent-routing features should consider conducting FTO analysis against this portfolio, particularly given LiveHelpNow’s demonstrated willingness to litigate.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.