Patent Armory v. Campaign Monitor: Five-Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five US patents covering intelligent call routing, communication systems, and auction-based entity matching against Campaign Monitor Pty Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice after 188 days — before the defendant had filed any answer or dispositive motion.
Five-Patent Assertion Against Email Marketing Firm Ends Early
Patent Armory, Inc. filed this infringement action on November 21, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States. The plaintiff asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1, all directed at intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching methods, against Campaign Monitor Pty Ltd., an Australian email marketing technology company.
On May 27, 2025 — 188 days after filing — Patent Armory filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, closing the case. Critically, Campaign Monitor had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, making the plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss without court approval operative. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The timing of the dismissal — before any substantive defence was mounted — is consistent with several common litigation dynamics: pre-answer settlement negotiations, licensing discussions that may have resolved the dispute outside of court, or a strategic reassessment of claim viability. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Patent Armory retains the right to refile these claims against Campaign Monitor in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or any other commercial resolution was reached between the parties.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 188 days
188 days — resolved before answer or summary judgment motion was filed
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows plaintiff to exit without court approval
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Campaign Monitor had done neither, so Patent Armory’s notice was self-executing. The court’s order simply acknowledged and formalised the exit.
Unilateral right to dismissWithout prejudice leaves the door open to refile
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not resolved on the merits and are not barred from being reasserted. Patent Armory retains the ability to refile these five patents against Campaign Monitor or other defendants in future actions, subject to statutes of limitations. The public record does not specify whether a settlement or licence was reached — the filing is silent on any commercial terms agreed between the parties.
Refile risk remainsCampaign Monitor exits without a merits ruling or cost exposure
Campaign Monitor avoided both a liability finding and a fee award. The court’s each-party-bears-own-costs order is standard in Rule 41 voluntary dismissals absent exceptional circumstances. However, the absence of a merits determination means Campaign Monitor has no estoppel shield — the same patents could be asserted again. Monitoring Patent Armory’s portfolio activity is advisable for Campaign Monitor and similarly positioned communication platform operators.
No merits adjudicationPre-answer exit signals potential off-record resolution — or strategic pause
Early voluntary dismissals in Eastern District of Texas cases frequently correlate with licensing negotiations or settlements concluded before significant litigation costs accumulate. Alternatively, plaintiffs may reassess venue, claim construction risk, or portfolio positioning. For the communication routing and telephony technology sector, the five asserted patents remain live and enforceable — other companies in this space should treat them as an active assertion risk.
Patents remain liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and 4 further communication routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Campaign Monitor Pty Ltd. | Company | Campaign Monitor Pty Ltd. — Australian email marketing and customer engagement platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip 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 Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive — it accepts and acknowledges a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), expressly noting that the defendant had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. No claim construction, validity analysis, or infringement finding was made. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: it preserves Patent Armory’s right to reassert all five patents in future proceedings, and Campaign Monitor gains no collateral estoppel protection from this exit.
US9456086B1 and 4 further patents — intelligent communication routing and telephony control
The five asserted patents span multiple generations of intelligent communication routing and telephony control technology. US9456086B1 (App. No. 12/719827) and US10491748B1 (App. No. 15/797070) cover intelligent communication routing systems and methods. US7269253B1 (App. No. 11/387305) and US7023979B1 (App. No. 10/385389) cover telephony control systems with intelligent call routing — suggesting an earlier-priority foundational claim set. US10237420B1 (App. No. 15/856729) covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction, extending the portfolio into data-driven matching workflows.
This portfolio’s breadth — spanning both telephony infrastructure and auction-style entity matching — gives Patent Armory strategic flexibility to target a wide range of communication platform operators, marketing automation vendors, and contact centre software providers. The inclusion of both early-filing (US10/385389) and later-generation (US15/797070) applications suggests a continuation strategy designed to maintain coverage as the technology landscape evolved. For competitors in cloud communications, CRM, and email marketing, this portfolio represents a multi-vector assertion risk that warrants careful claim mapping.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any company developing or operating intelligent call routing, communication platform orchestration, automated lead matching, or auction-based audience targeting functionality should treat this five-patent portfolio as an active FTO priority. Campaign Monitor’s dismissal without prejudice means the litigation threat has not been neutralised — it has been deferred. Product teams working on contact centre software, email marketing automation, or CRM-integrated telephony should map their routing and matching logic against all five patent claim sets before any new product launch or feature release.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly cross-reference your product specifications against the claim language of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, continuation relationships, and related family members — enabling your IP team to identify design-around opportunities and assess invalidity arguments before Patent Armory initiates its next assertion campaign. Run your FTO analysis now while the portfolio is between active litigation cycles.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: intelligent routing and telephony IP in E.D. Tex.
Browse related patent assertion cases involving intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and call management technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the communication routing IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal without prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas rarely signals the end of a patent assertion campaign — particularly with five live patents still in play.
Eastern District of Texas remains the preferred venue for PAE campaigns
Patent Armory selected Judge Gilstrap’s court — the highest-volume patent docket in the US — for this five-patent assertion. Even a voluntary early exit does not diminish the venue’s attractiveness for future filings. Companies operating communication routing, telephony, or marketing automation platforms should maintain ongoing monitoring of filings in this district.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps enforcement pressure alive for all five patents
All five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain fully enforceable. Patent Armory can refile against Campaign Monitor or assert these patents against other defendants at any time. Companies in the intelligent communication routing, customer engagement, and telephony sectors should audit their products against this portfolio without delay.
Patent v Campaign — key questions answered
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means Patent Armory chose to end the case before Campaign Monitor filed an answer or summary judgment motion. No merits ruling was made. The without-prejudice designation means Patent Armory can refile the same claims against Campaign Monitor or assert the five patents against other defendants in future litigation.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control systems with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction. All five patents remain enforceable following the dismissal.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Pre-answer voluntary dismissals in Eastern District of Texas patent cases are consistent with several scenarios: a confidential licence or settlement reached off-record, a strategic decision to reassess claim viability or venue, or a temporary pause ahead of a broader assertion campaign. The dismissal without prejudice preserves all options for Patent Armory.
No. A dismissal without prejudice does not create collateral estoppel or res judicata protection for Campaign Monitor. Patent Armory may refile claims based on the same five patents, provided applicable statutes of limitations have not expired. Campaign Monitor should continue to monitor Patent Armory’s litigation activity and maintain an FTO assessment against the asserted portfolio.
Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly provides that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is the standard outcome in a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal where no exceptional circumstances — such as an attorneys’ fees motion or finding of bad faith — were raised or adjudicated prior to dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.