Patent Armory v. Alight Solutions: 5-Patent Call Routing Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against HR technology provider Alight Solutions LLC. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, the case lasted just 76 days before Patent Armory filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Five-Patent Assertion Against HR Tech Provider Ends Early With No Merits Ruling
On September 18, 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Alight Solutions LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting infringement of five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The asserted patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control with intelligent call routing — technologies relevant to enterprise HR service delivery platforms such as those operated by Alight Solutions.
The case closed on December 3, 2024 — just 76 days after filing — when Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge April M. Perry acknowledged the dismissal and denied a pending motion to continue as moot. Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by the defendant, dismissal without prejudice was available as of right under Rule 41. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement or licensing negotiation accompanied the dismissal.
The rapid resolution — before any substantive court activity — is consistent with patterns seen in early-stage patent assertion entity litigation, where pre-suit licensing discussions may render formal litigation unnecessary. The without-prejudice designation is significant: Patent Armory retains the legal right to refile these same claims against Alight Solutions or any other defendant. Whether this reflects a licensing resolution, a strategic pause, or a decision to pursue different targets remains unknown from the public record alone.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 76 days
76 days — resolved well before any substantive motion practice or claim construction
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right before defendant responds
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Patent Armory exercised this right here. The court’s role was purely administrative — Judge Perry acknowledged the notice rather than granting a motion. No merits determination was made on any of the five asserted patents.
No judicial merits rulingWithout prejudice — but the public record is silent on terms
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not extinguished: Patent Armory may refile the same infringement allegations against Alight Solutions or other targets in future. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The verdict text confirms this was without prejudice, but the public docket does not reveal whether a confidential settlement, licensing agreement, or other arrangement accompanied the dismissal. Both outcomes are legally consistent with the procedural posture observed.
Refiling right preservedAlight Solutions exits without admission, but exposure persists
Alight Solutions received no formal finding of non-infringement and no invalidity ruling on any of the five patents. The without-prejudice dismissal means the threat is not permanently resolved. Alight retains no estoppel protection from this proceeding. If no licensing agreement was reached, the same patents could be reasserted. The absence of any defendant law firm on record suggests Alight may not have formally appeared before the dismissal was filed.
No estoppel protectionFive call routing patents remain active enforcement tools
All five asserted patents — covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — remain valid and enforceable on the public record. Companies deploying AI-driven or rules-based call routing, IVR systems, or workforce management platforms in the HR technology sector should note that Patent Armory’s portfolio has not been adjudicated or narrowed by this proceeding. The breadth of the assertion across five distinct patents suggests a deliberate enforcement strategy.
Portfolio enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and 4 further call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Alight Solutions LLC | Company | Alight Solutions LLC — enterprise HR and benefits technology platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge April M. Perry | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acknowledgment of Patent Armory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice confirms the dismissal was procedurally proper — no defendant response had been filed, so no court order was required. The simultaneous denial of Patent Armory’s pending motion to continue as moot indicates at least one substantive motion had been filed pre-dismissal, suggesting the case saw some early activity before the plaintiff elected to withdraw. Critically, the without-prejudice designation means no claim or defence was resolved on the merits, and all five patents retain their presumption of validity.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent Communication Routing System and Related Portfolio
US9456086B1, the lead patent in this assertion, covers intelligent communication routing systems and methods — technology governing how inbound communications are analysed, scored, and directed to optimal endpoints. The portfolio spans application numbers across multiple filing generations, from US10/385389 (the earliest) through US15/856729, indicating a family developed over roughly 15 years. The inclusion of auction-based entity matching patents (US10491748B1) alongside telephony control patents (US7269253B1, US7023979B1) suggests a broad claim architecture designed to cover algorithmic routing in both voice and platform-mediated service contexts.
For enterprise HR technology providers and contact centre platform vendors, this portfolio presents a non-trivial assertion surface. Alight Solutions operates platforms that route employee benefit enquiries, service desk interactions, and HR workflow tasks — all functions that could intersect with claim language covering intelligent routing and entity matching. The age spread of the portfolio (earliest application circa 2002–2003 based on application number series) means some patents may be approaching or past expiry, but the more recent filings (US15/797070, US15/856729) suggest active prosecution into the mid-2010s, extending potential enforcement windows.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9456086B1 and Patent Armory’s call routing portfolio?
Any company deploying intelligent call routing, IVR systems, workforce task routing, or algorithmic benefits service triage should assess exposure to this five-patent portfolio. The assertion against Alight Solutions — an enterprise HR platform — signals that Patent Armory views the claims as broadly applicable beyond traditional telecoms contexts. Product teams building or acquiring routing logic for HR service delivery, contact centre automation, or benefits navigation platforms are particularly relevant targets for this FTO exercise.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map product features against the specific claim language of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 simultaneously. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies prosecution history estoppel, and flags related family members that may present parallel risk — enabling legal teams to build a defensible FTO position ahead of any demand letter or complaint.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Call Routing and Telephony Patent Cases in N.D. Illinois and Beyond
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting intelligent call routing and telephony control patents in the Northern District of Illinois and U.S. district courts nationwide.
What this case signals for the HR technology and call routing IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved in 76 days without a merits ruling carries specific implications for enterprise technology vendors and their IP teams.
Early dismissal without prejudice is not clearance — refile risk is real
Patent Armory preserved its right to refile all five claims. Enterprises in the HR tech and communications routing sector should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patents are weak or the enforcement campaign is over. A without-prejudice exit at this stage is a standard tool in PAE licensing strategies and may simply indicate that discussions are continuing outside of court.
Pre-answer dismissal leaves no invalidity record to rely on
Because the case ended before Alight Solutions filed any responsive pleading, there is no invalidity argument, claim construction position, or prior art on the record. Any company facing these five patents in a future proceeding must build its own defence from scratch. Prior art searches and IPR petition readiness for US9456086B1, US10491748B1, and the three related patents are warranted for at-risk vendors.
Patent v Alight — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These cover intelligent communication routing systems and methods, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control with intelligent call routing. The products at issue included intelligent communication routing systems and telephony control platforms.
Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. No defendant response had been filed, making the dismissal procedurally available without a court order. The public record does not disclose the reason for the dismissal or whether a settlement was reached.
No. A dismissal without prejudice carries no merits determination. No court ruled on infringement, validity, or claim construction. Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same claims against Alight Solutions or any other defendant. Alight Solutions received no estoppel protection or invalidity finding from this proceeding.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Patent Armory is not barred from reasserting US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, or US10237420B1 against Alight Solutions in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any agreements reached privately between the parties that are not reflected in the public docket.
Patent Armory had filed a motion to continue (docket entry 9) prior to the voluntary dismissal. When the dismissal notice was filed, Judge Perry denied that motion as moot — meaning the court no longer needed to act on it because the case was ending. This indicates some procedural activity occurred in the short 76-day window, but no substantive ruling was issued on any of the five asserted patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.