Patent Armory, Inc. v. ABP OPCO, LLC: Voluntary Dismissal in Intelligent Call Routing Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Patent Armory, Inc. v. ABP OPCO, LLC |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-00922 (D. Del.) |
| Court | District of Delaware |
| Duration | Aug 2023 – Mar 2024 210 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal (No Damages) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Intelligent communication routing system and method; Method and system for matching entities in an auction; Telephony control system with intelligent call routing |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE), holding and licensing intellectual property in communications and telephony technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
The defendant in this case; limited public information is available regarding its specific market position or operational focus.
The Patents at Issue
This case centered on five U.S. patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching. These technologies are deeply embedded in modern customer engagement and contact center infrastructure.
- • US7023979B1 — Foundational telephony routing architecture
- • US7269253B1 — Telephony control system with intelligent call routing
- • US9456086B1 — Advanced intelligent communication routing system
- • US10237420B1 — Extended communication routing methodology
- • US10491748B1 — Method and system for matching entities in an auction
Developing intelligent call routing systems?
Check if your communication routing design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case concluded with a **voluntary dismissal without prejudice**, filed by Patent Armory, Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted or denied. The dismissal preserves Patent Armory’s right to refile the same claims against ABP OPCO in the future.
Key Legal Issues
The infringement action never reached substantive adjudication, as the dismissal occurred before the defendant filed an answer or moved for summary judgment. This type of early-stage dismissal is common for patent assertion entities (PAEs), often indicating an out-of-court settlement, strategic reassessment, or portfolio redeployment. The Delaware District Court continues to be a prominent venue for such patent assertion strategies.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in intelligent call routing and telephony systems. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 5 asserted patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in intelligent call routing patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for telephony systems
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Intelligent call routing & entity matching algorithms
5 Asserted Patents
In telephony control and routing
Strategic Options
Available for navigating key claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) pre-answer dismissal is a tactically flexible exit preserving full plaintiff optionality.
Search related case law →Delaware District Court continues to handle early-stage PAE assertions efficiently, reinforcing its appeal as a venue.
Explore court analytics →Frequently Asked Questions
Five U.S. patents: US7023979B1, US7269253B1, US9456086B1, US10237420B1, and US10491748B1, covering intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching.
Patent Armory filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before ABP OPCO answered the complaint. The specific reason was not disclosed publicly.
It reinforces Delaware as a preferred PAE venue and highlights the strategic use of pre-answer dismissal to preserve re-litigation rights while potentially concluding licensing negotiations confidentially.
Companies can protect themselves by conducting thorough freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis before launching new call routing or customer engagement systems. Document design evolution, consider design-around strategies for high-risk elements, and file your own patents early to protect innovations. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO tools help R&D and IP teams identify potentially blocking patents before products go to market.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Locator – Case 1:23-cv-00922
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database
- Delaware District Court Local Patent Rules
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.