Infringement action filed 11 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Sep 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Intelligent communication routing system and method · Method and system for matching entities in an auction · Telephony control system with intelligent call routing
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00581, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
A communications routing system, and method, for representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility; representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets each having an economic utility; and determining an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination represented by linkages.
The docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Patent Armory Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims against Defendant WITH PREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Plaintiff WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees."
Case 6:23-cv-00581 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 September 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
6:23-cv-00581 is a patent infringement action brought by Patent Armory, Inc. against Avis Budget Group, Inc., filed on 11 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00581?
US9456086B1 (“Method and system for matching entities in an auction”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently active; US10491748B1 (“Intelligent communication routing system and method”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently active; US7269253B1 (“Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC.; US7023979B1 (“Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC.; US10237420B1 (“Method and system for matching entities in an auction”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC.. The record also lists Intelligent communication routing system and method, Method and system for matching entities in an auction and Telephony control system with intelligent call routing.
How was case 6:23-cv-00581 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Patent Armory Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims against Defendant WITH PREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Plaintiff WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees."
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 6:23-cv-00581 take?
26 calendar days, from filing on 11 Aug 2023 to closure on 6 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00581?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Patent Armory. Lance E. Wyatt Jr. and Neil J. McNabnay appear for defendant Avis Budget Group.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00581 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00581 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
