Patent Armory v. Booking Holdings: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed Without Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Booking Holdings, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice just 84 days after filing, before Booking Holdings answered or moved for summary judgment.
Five patents, 84 days: Patent Armory's swift exit from W.D. Texas
On 27 July 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action against Booking Holdings, Inc. — the parent of Booking.com, Priceline, and Kayak — in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1, covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method and system for matching entities in an auction context.
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiff dismissed the action without prejudice, noting that the defendant had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is a plaintiff's unilateral right exercisable at any point before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, and it carries no preclusive effect as a matter of law.
The case closed on 19 October 2023 — just 84 days after filing. The speed of dismissal suggests the plaintiff exercised its unilateral right to exit before incurring the cost and strategic exposure of full litigation. Whether the dismissal reflects a private resolution, a strategic repositioning, or an assessment of claim viability is not disclosed in the available public record. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Patent Armory retains the right to refile claims on these patents, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any other procedural constraints.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 84 days
84 days — case closed before defendant filed any response
US9456086B1 and four further patents — intelligent call routing and auction-matching systems
Any enterprise operating intelligent call routing, automated telephony control, or real-time auction-based matching infrastructure should assess exposure to this five-patent portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal means all five patents remain active and enforceable. Travel platforms, contact-centre-as-a-service providers, marketplace operators, and ad-tech firms running real-time bidding should specifically evaluate whether their architectures fall within the claims of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, or US10237420B1.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket records a unilateral plaintiff dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), filed before Booking Holdings served any answer or summary judgment motion. The order is styled as a without-prejudice exit, meaning no merits determination was made and no judgment was entered against either party. The dismissal leaves all five asserted patents legally intact and fully enforceable, and the plaintiff retains the procedural right to refile subject to the Rule 41 two-dismissal rule and applicable statutes of limitations.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's unilateral right to dismiss
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is available as of right when the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No court order is required, and the dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing. The 'without prejudice' designation means no judgment on the merits is entered, leaving the plaintiff free to refile. The specific reasons for dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: refiling rights preserved, but with caveats
A 'without prejudice' dismissal does not bar Patent Armory from reasserting any of the five patents against Booking Holdings or other defendants. However, the public record is silent on whether any side agreement conditions the refiling right. Under the Rule 41 'two-dismissal rule', a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim operates as a dismissal with prejudice. Practitioners should audit the filing history of each asserted patent for any prior dismissals.
Refiling right preservedBooking Holdings exits without a merits victory — risk persists
Because no merits ruling was entered, Booking Holdings received no invalidity finding, no non-infringement judgment, and no fee-shifting award. The company cannot invoke this dismissal as a preclusive shield against a future action on these patents. The absence of an answer also means none of its non-infringement or invalidity positions were placed on the record, leaving its full defensive posture undisclosed.
No preclusive effectFive active patents remain viable enforcement tools in the routing space
All five asserted patents survive this dismissal fully intact. Online travel platforms, call-centre operators, and any enterprise deploying intelligent call routing or auction-based communication matching should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. Patent Armory retains all rights to refile, license, or assert the patents elsewhere. Companies in the travel-tech and telephony sectors operating similar routing infrastructure should monitor this portfolio closely.
Enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Booking Holdings, Inc. | 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 | Jeremy J. Taylor | Attorney | Counsel for Booking Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Booking Holdings, Inc.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 auction-matching space
Forward-looking patent and technology intelligence derived from the patents asserted against Booking Holdings — covering routing systems, telephony control, and real-time entity matching.
Patent Armory's routing and matching portfolio signals sustained enforcement intent
The five asserted patents span application dates from the early 2000s to the mid-2010s, suggesting Patent Armory has assembled a multi-generation portfolio in the routing and matching space. Monitoring Patent Armory's full patent holdings and any new acquisitions in this domain can provide early warning of future assertion targets in travel-tech, contact-centre, and marketplace sectors.
Portfolio watch: routing IPFiling activity in AI-driven call routing is accelerating — claim overlap risk rising
Intelligent call routing and real-time communication matching are active areas of patent filing activity, particularly as AI and machine learning are applied to contact-centre and marketplace infrastructure. Companies building next-generation routing systems should map new filings in CPC subclasses H04M3/523 and G06Q30/0601 to identify claim overlap risks before products reach market.
Routing IP filing trendBooking Holdings' own patent activity in platform matching and pricing systems
As a defendant, Booking Holdings' own patent portfolio in dynamic pricing, auction-based supplier matching, and customer communication routing is relevant context for understanding its defensive IP posture. Mapping Booking Holdings' filing activity in these domains may reveal counterclaim potential and signal where the company is investing in proprietary platform differentiation.
Booking Holdings IP watchAdjacent white space: context-aware routing for AI-powered travel platforms
The asserted patents focus on rule-based and auction-driven routing architectures. There may be white space in patent coverage for context-aware, AI-inferred routing decisions that combine user intent signals, real-time inventory data, and predictive demand modelling — areas not clearly addressed by the claim families asserted here. R&D teams building next-generation booking and communication infrastructure should evaluate filing opportunities in this adjacent space.
AI routing white spaceSimilar call routing and telephony patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent assertion actions involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-matching systems filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the call routing and travel-tech IP landscape
A five-patent assertion against a major travel platform — dropped in 84 days — surfaces durable IP risk across the routing and auction-matching space.
W.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for patent assertion entities
Judge Albright's docket continues to attract high-volume patent assertion filings. Companies in the travel-tech and communications sectors should maintain active monitoring of new filings in the Western District of Texas, particularly where routing, telephony, or matching-system patents are asserted.
Pre-answer dismissals rarely signal case weakness alone
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before the defendant answers may reflect strategic repositioning, parallel licensing discussions, or a decision to refile in a different venue or against a different defendant. Companies served with a complaint that is then dropped should not assume the patent risk has passed — the five patents here remain in force.
Patent v Booking — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction context.
The docket records a voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), noting that Booking Holdings had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. The specific reasons for the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not bar refiling. However, the Rule 41 two-dismissal rule provides that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim by the same plaintiff operates as a dismissal with prejudice. Whether any side agreement conditions the refiling right is not disclosed in the available record.
All five asserted patents remain legally valid and enforceable. Patent Armory retains the right to refile against Booking Holdings or to assert these patents against other defendants. Companies operating intelligent call routing, telephony control, or auction-based matching infrastructure should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk and consider conducting FTO analysis.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (case no. 6:23-cv-00540) and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. The case was filed on 27 July 2023 and closed on 19 October 2023, a duration of 84 days.
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.