Patent Armory v. Bill Miller Bar-B-Q: Five Call Routing Patents, Voluntarily Dismissed in 128 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching systems against regional restaurant chain Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, Ltd. The action closed in just 128 days when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed before the defendant had answered the complaint.
Five Telephony Patents, One Restaurant Chain, and a Swift Exit
On 22 August 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action in the Western District of Texas (Judge Alan D. Albright) against Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, Ltd., a regional food-service operator. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method-and-system claims for matching entities in an auction context.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiff dismissed the action with prejudice, noting that the defendant had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, and that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the dismissal, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
The case resolved in only 128 days — before the defendant filed any responsive pleading — which is notably fast even for a venue known for its active patent docket. What drove the early exit is not apparent from the public record. No damages figure, licensing agreement, or further resolution detail has been publicly filed.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 128 days
128 days — resolved well below the typical W.D. Tex. district court timeline
US9456086B1 and four further patents — intelligent call routing and telephony control systems
Any business operating customer-facing telephony, interactive voice response, call queue management, or communication routing systems — regardless of industry vertical — should assess freedom-to-operate against this five-patent portfolio. The suit against a regional restaurant chain confirms that the plaintiff is willing to pursue non-technology defendants who rely on commercial telephony infrastructure.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiff's self-executing right to dismiss before any responsive pleading is served, and characterises the dismissal as 'with prejudice.' The cost-neutrality provision — each party bearing its own fees — removes any punitive dimension. Because no claim construction or merits ruling was issued, the notice creates no public record on infringement or validity of the five asserted patents.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the early exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Plaintiff's unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is self-executing and takes effect upon filing. Here the plaintiff invoked this rule and styled the dismissal as 'with prejudice,' meaning the same claims cannot be re-filed.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalThe public record states 'with prejudice' — but the basis is 'Voluntary dismissal'
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal,' which does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The docket order text states 'with prejudice.' A dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing of the same claims; one without prejudice does not. The reader should treat both characterisations as stated in the record without reconciling them; the operative legal effect, if contested, would turn on the filed notice itself.
Prejudice designation notedBill Miller Bar-B-Q exits before incurring full litigation costs
Because the defendant had not yet answered the complaint when the dismissal was filed, it avoided the most resource-intensive phases of district court litigation — claim construction, fact discovery, and expert proceedings. The cost-bearing provision confirms no fee award was entered against either side. Whether any private arrangement accompanied the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record.
No fee award; pre-answer exitFive patents remain active; assertion risk persists for telephony-adjacent sectors
A dismissal — even with prejudice as to this defendant — does not extinguish the underlying patents. All five patents in suit (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, US10237420B1) remain in force subject to their individual expiry dates. Businesses operating customer-facing telephony, call routing, or interactive voice response systems should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac 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 | Barry A. Mcclenahan | Attorney | Counsel for Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Mcclenahan Law Firm, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the intelligent call routing and telephony IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Patent Armory assertion — mapping portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in call routing and telephony control technology.
Patent Armory's filing activity across routing and telephony families
Patent Armory's assertion of five patents spanning multiple application generations suggests an actively curated continuation portfolio in intelligent routing. Monitoring the assignee's prosecution activity and any continuation filings off US9456086B1 or US10491748B1 can give early warning of new claim permutations before they are asserted.
Continuation portfolio watchFiling trends in intelligent communication routing and IVR systems
The IVR and intelligent routing space has seen sustained filing activity as cloud contact centres and AI-driven queue management mature. Tracking CPC subclasses H04M3/523 and G06Q30/0255 can surface competitive filings from major telecoms, CCaaS vendors, and assertion entities in this domain — critical for teams benchmarking their own R&D position.
IVR & CCaaS filing trendsBill Miller Bar-B-Q's IP position in customer communications tech
As a food-service operator rather than a technology developer, Bill Miller Bar-B-Q is unlikely to hold an independent patent position in telephony or routing. This asymmetry — no defensive portfolio, third-party telephony infrastructure — is exactly the profile NPEs target. Vendors supplying telephony systems to restaurant chains should assess whether their customer contracts include IP indemnification obligations.
End-user defendant profileAdjacent R&D opportunities near entity-matching and routing claim space
The auction-based entity-matching patent (US10491748B1) sits at the intersection of routing logic and marketplace-matching algorithms — a space where AI-driven real-time bidding and intelligent agent routing are converging. Innovators building next-generation CCaaS or AI contact centre products should map claim boundaries here to identify defensible white space before the continuation families mature further.
AI routing white spaceSimilar call routing and telephony patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable NPE-driven call routing and telephony patent assertions filed in the Western District of Texas, including cases before Judge Albright.
What this case signals for the call routing IP landscape
A five-patent assertion against a food-service operator highlights how broadly telephony routing claims can be deployed across non-traditional defendants.
Pre-answer dismissals suggest rapid commercial resolution or leverage testing
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant files any responsive pleading, it consistently signals either a rapid private resolution or a strategic reassessment of the litigation target. The 128-day window is short even for W.D. Tex. Patent teams tracking Patent Armory's campaign should monitor subsequent filings against similarly-sized operators.
Non-tech defendants are increasingly targeted by call-routing NPEs
Asserting telephony and call-routing patents against a regional restaurant chain is consistent with a broader NPE strategy of targeting businesses that use third-party phone systems rather than developing proprietary telephony. Any company that operates customer-facing IVR or call-routing infrastructure — regardless of industry — should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk.
Patent v Bill — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction context.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that the plaintiff dismissed the action pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), characterising it as 'with prejudice,' before the defendant had answered the complaint. Each party bears its own costs and fees. The specific terms, if any, underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the public record.
A dismissal with prejudice bars re-assertion of the same claims against the same defendant — Bill Miller Bar-B-Q — in a new action. It does not extinguish the underlying patents or prevent Patent Armory from asserting the same patents against different defendants. All five patents remain in force subject to their individual statutory expiry dates.
NPE assertion strategies frequently target end-users of commercial telephony infrastructure — such as IVR systems, call queuing, or routing platforms — rather than the technology vendors themselves. Businesses that operate customer contact lines using third-party systems may fall within the scope of method or system claims even if they did not develop the underlying technology.
The case was filed in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, a court that remains a preferred NPE venue due to its familiarity with patent litigation and historically fast scheduling. A pre-answer dismissal avoided any venue transfer challenge, which is a procedural tool defendants in this district often deploy early to shift cases to their home jurisdictions.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.