Patent Armory v. Banner Health: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed in 31 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Banner Health in the Colorado District Court asserting five patents covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 31 days — one of the fastest resolutions in NPE-driven patent infringement actions.
A rapid exit: NPE asserts five routing patents, settles in one month
On 22 November 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. — a non-practising entity — filed suit against Banner Health, a large non-profit health system, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleged infringement of five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The asserted patents span intelligent communication routing, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity matching systems — technologies directly relevant to enterprise-scale contact centre and patient communication infrastructure.
The case closed on 23 December 2024 via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — a joint motion signed by both parties. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Patent Armory cannot reassert the same patents against Banner Health in any future action. Notably, Banner Health’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to revive those claims if circumstances change. The asymmetric dismissal terms suggest the resolution was negotiated rather than purely procedural.
A 31-day resolution is exceptionally fast for a multi-patent infringement action and typically signals either a rapid licensing agreement, a nuisance-value settlement, or a defendant with sufficient leverage to force early capitulation. The public record is silent on whether any financial consideration changed hands. Fish & Richardson’s involvement for Banner Health — a defence firm with substantial NPE litigation experience — likely contributed to the swift resolution. What drove Patent Armory to accept a with-prejudice bar so quickly remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 31 days
31 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the asymmetric terms reveal
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a joint stipulation signed by all parties — it requires no court order and takes effect upon filing. When entered with prejudice on the plaintiff’s claims, it is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these five patents against Banner Health in any U.S. court.
Permanent bar on plaintiff’s claimsWhy plaintiff’s claims are with prejudice but counterclaims are not
The split-prejudice structure is legally significant. Plaintiff’s infringement claims are extinguished permanently; Banner Health’s counterclaims survive in latent form. This asymmetry is consistent with a negotiated exit where the defendant preserved optionality — for example, retaining the right to pursue invalidity or other claims should Patent Armory assert the same patents against Banner Health entities in the future.
Defendant retains counterclaim rightsPatent Armory exits with a permanent bar — but patents remain in force
While Patent Armory is barred from suing Banner Health again on these five patents, the underlying patents remain valid and enforceable against all other parties. The rapid with-prejudice exit may reflect a licensing resolution, a strategic portfolio decision, or defendant leverage — but it does not extinguish Patent Armory’s ability to assert the same patents in new actions against other defendants.
Patents enforceable against third partiesHealth systems operating contact centres face persistent NPE exposure
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of NPEs asserting communication routing patents against large healthcare organisations that operate enterprise telephony and patient-routing infrastructure. The 31-day resolution at Fish & Richardson’s hands suggests Banner Health was well-prepared. Other health systems and hospital networks using intelligent call routing or IVR platforms should treat this filing pattern as a signals-based threat worth monitoring.
NPE risk: health sector telephonyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Non-practising entity (NPE) — holder of US9456086B1 and four related call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Banner Health | Individual | Banner Health — large non-profit health system and integrated care network based in ArizonaSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. Mcnabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Banner HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Banner HealthSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Colorado District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s split-prejudice construction — plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims preserved without — carries meaningful legal weight beyond a simple exit. The with-prejudice designation operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently foreclosing Patent Armory’s infringement claims against Banner Health on these five patents. The without-prejudice carve-out for counterclaims is an uncommon asymmetry that suggests Banner Health’s counsel negotiated expressly to retain downstream optionality, consistent with a defendant that perceived residual risk from the NPE’s broader portfolio activity.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
The five asserted patents cover a range of communication infrastructure technologies: intelligent routing of inbound calls and communications (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1) and auction-based entity matching for communication distribution (US10237420B1). The earliest application dates back to US10/385389, filed in the early 2000s, indicating foundational-era telephony patents. US10491748B1 and US10237420B1, with application numbers in the US15/xxxxxxx range, represent continuation-era filings extending the original priority chains into more modern claim language.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, this five-patent stack is strategically constructed to cover multiple implementation layers of enterprise contact centre and patient communication platforms — routing logic, telephony system architecture, and marketplace-style call distribution. For healthcare organisations, patient access centres and nurse triage lines frequently rely on exactly the kind of intelligent routing infrastructure these patents describe. The assertion against Banner Health — a multi-state health system — suggests Patent Armory is specifically targeting large healthcare operators with enterprise telephony deployments, a pattern that warrants sector-wide monitoring.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9456086B1 and related patents?
Any organisation deploying intelligent call routing, interactive voice response (IVR), or contact centre platforms — particularly in the healthcare, telehealth, or payer sectors — should treat this patent family as a live FTO concern. Patent Armory has now demonstrated willingness to file in federal court and pursue rapid assertion. The with-prejudice resolution against Banner Health means these patents are still fully enforceable against every other operator in this technology space.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim scope across all five asserted patents, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related continuation applications that could extend assertion risk. For product and engineering teams building or procuring intelligent routing, IVR, or patient communication systems, an FTO run now is significantly cheaper than a responsive defence strategy after a complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE call routing patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving NPE assertion of telephony and intelligent call routing patents in U.S. district courts, with comparable rapid resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the healthcare and telephony IP landscape
A 31-day NPE resolution in Colorado reveals both defendant preparation and a repeatable patent assertion playbook worth tracking.
Fish & Richardson’s early intervention likely drove the rapid exit
Banner Health retained Fish & Richardson — a firm with deep NPE defence experience — and the case closed within 31 days. Early engagement of specialist NPE defence counsel before or immediately after filing is consistently correlated with faster, lower-cost resolutions in non-practising entity actions.
Five-patent stacks on call routing are a repeatable NPE strategy
Patent Armory asserted five patents spanning two decades of call routing and telephony innovation. This portfolio-stacking approach raises the cost of invalidity challenges and increases settlement pressure. Any enterprise deploying intelligent routing, IVR, or contact centre technology should audit exposure to this patent family now — not after a filing.
Patent v Banner — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity matching for communication distribution — technologies relevant to enterprise contact centre and patient communication infrastructure.
The case closed via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal just 31 days after filing. A resolution this fast typically signals a negotiated licensing agreement, a nuisance-value settlement, or a defendant with sufficient early leverage to force rapid exit. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. Banner Health’s retention of Fish & Richardson — an experienced NPE defence firm — likely contributed to the speed of resolution.
A dismissal with prejudice on Patent Armory’s claims constitutes a final adjudication on the merits. Patent Armory is permanently barred from reasserting US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, or US10237420B1 against Banner Health in any future action. However, the patents remain valid and enforceable against all other third parties.
The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant counterclaims without prejudice — is consistent with a negotiated outcome where Banner Health preserved optionality. Dismissing counterclaims without prejudice allows Banner Health to revive those claims in future proceedings, which could be strategically relevant if Patent Armory resurfaces with the same portfolio against Banner Health affiliates or related entities.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects Banner Health. US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 remain in force and can be asserted against any other company operating intelligent call routing, telephony control, or contact centre platforms. Health systems, telehealth providers, and enterprise contact centre operators should consider proactive FTO analysis against this patent family.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.