Patent Armory v. Campus Protein: Five Routing Patents, Dismissed in 21 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit in the District of Delaware asserting five patents spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against supplement retailer Campus Protein, Inc. The case lasted just 21 days before Patent Armory voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving the door open for future action.
Five-Patent Routing Suit Against Supplement Retailer Ends Before Answer
On March 11, 2025, Patent Armory, Inc. filed Case No. 1:25-cv-00290 in the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika, asserting infringement of five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The asserted patents collectively cover intelligent communication routing, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method-and-system frameworks for matching entities in an auction context. The defendant, Campus Protein, Inc., is an online supplement and nutrition retailer.
On March 31, 2025 — just 20 days after filing — Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. Campus Protein had not yet responded to the complaint, making the procedural mechanism available without court order. The case was formally closed on April 1, 2025.
The 21-day lifespan is strikingly short and suggests the dismissal may have been driven by a pre-litigation settlement, licensing negotiation, or a reassessment of claim mapping against Campus Protein’s specific technology stack. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same claims. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, payment, or licensing agreement between the parties.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 21 days
21-day duration — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any point before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Campus Protein had not yet answered, Patent Armory could file a one-page notice and exit instantly. No judicial approval was required, and no merits determination was made.
No court order neededThe public record is silent on re-filing risk
The notice expressly states dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Patent Armory is legally free to refile the same five patents against Campus Protein at any time. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred refiling. The distinction is commercially significant: without prejudice preserves all enforcement optionality, and there is no public record of any settlement, payment, or covenant not to sue.
Refiling remains possibleCampus Protein exits without a merits win — or a settlement on record
Campus Protein avoided the cost and disruption of full patent litigation, but the without-prejudice dismissal means it does not hold a judgment in its favour. If no private licensing agreement was reached, Campus Protein may face the same five patents in a future action. The absence of any defendant agent or counsel on the public docket suggests the matter may have been resolved informally before formal representation was entered.
No merits adjudicationIntelligent routing patents remain live threats in e-commerce
Patent Armory’s portfolio spans foundational telephony and communication-routing technologies that can be asserted broadly across online retail and customer-service platforms. The rapid dismissal — before Campus Protein even retained visible counsel — is consistent with a licensing-resolution pattern commonly used by non-practising entities. Other e-commerce and direct-to-consumer brands operating similar routing or customer-contact infrastructure should treat this case as a signal to review exposure.
NPE enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, US10237420B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Campus Protein, Inc. | Company | Campus Protein, Inc. — online sports nutrition and supplement retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig N. Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with precision, confirming that Campus Protein had not answered or moved for summary judgment — the two procedural prerequisites for a unilateral plaintiff exit. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ is explicit, preserving Patent Armory’s full right to refile. No merits finding was made on any of the five asserted patents, so validity and infringement questions remain entirely open. The speed of the filing-to-dismissal arc — 20 days — is the analytically significant data point, consistent with an out-of-court resolution rather than a substantive case evaluation.
US9456086B1 and four further patents — intelligent call routing and telephony control
The five asserted patents span two core technology clusters. The first cluster — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, and US10237420B1 — covers intelligent communication routing systems and telephony control methods, encompassing how inbound and outbound calls or contacts are directed based on dynamic routing logic. The second cluster — US7023979B1 — addresses method-and-system frameworks for matching entities in an auction context, which may relate to routing callers to agents or service providers through a bid-based allocation mechanism. The application dates span from early-to-mid 2000s originals through mid-2010s continuations, suggesting a prosecution strategy designed to extend claim coverage into modern implementation environments.
From a strategic standpoint, communication-routing patents with broad method claims can map onto a wide range of customer-contact, IVR, and e-commerce recommendation systems used by online retailers. Campus Protein’s use of such infrastructure — common among direct-to-consumer brands managing inbound sales and support — is the likely nexus. Patent Armory’s ability to assert five patents simultaneously, spanning both routing logic and entity-matching methods, indicates a portfolio structured for maximum coverage against technology-dependent commercial operations. Competitors and adjacent companies in the supplement, nutrition, and online retail sectors should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory routing portfolio?
Any e-commerce, direct-to-consumer, or online retail business operating intelligent call routing, IVR systems, contact-centre software, or customer-matching platforms should consider an FTO assessment against this five-patent portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal means Patent Armory can refile — against Campus Protein or any similarly situated company — at any time. If your product stack includes third-party or proprietary routing logic, agent-matching algorithms, or auction-based lead distribution, the asserted claims warrant review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 against your technology architecture and flag design-around opportunities or prior art that could challenge claim validity. Given that none of these patents has been subjected to public claim construction in this case, an independent analysis of claim scope is especially valuable before Patent Armory pursues its next target.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Intelligent Routing and Telephony Patent Cases in Delaware District Court
Cases involving NPE assertion of intelligent call routing and telephony control patents in the District of Delaware follow recognisable patterns worth benchmarking against this dispute.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and telephony IP landscape
A 21-day patent suit with five routing patents and no defendant counsel on record is a textbook NPE rapid-resolution pattern worth tracking.
Rule 41 exits before answer are a hallmark of NPE licensing campaigns
When a plaintiff dismisses under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within days of filing — and the defendant has no public counsel — it typically signals a quick licensing payment or pre-litigation resolution. Patent Armory’s five-patent portfolio and Delaware venue choice are consistent with a systematic assertion strategy rather than a one-off dispute.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves full enforcement optionality
Campus Protein received no covenant not to sue on the public record. Any e-commerce company in the nutrition, supplement, or direct-to-consumer space using third-party call routing, IVR, or customer-matching systems should assess whether these five patents map to their own infrastructure before a similar notice arrives.
Patent v Campus — 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 a method and system for matching entities in an auction context.
The case was voluntarily dismissed by Patent Armory on March 31, 2025, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), just 20 days after filing. Campus Protein had not yet answered. The speed of dismissal is consistent with an out-of-court licensing resolution, though no settlement terms appear in the public record.
The dismissal was explicitly without prejudice. Patent Armory’s notice states this and invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Without-prejudice status means Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same claims against Campus Protein. No covenant not to sue or settlement agreement appears in the public docket.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Patent Armory is not barred from refiling the same claims. The one-dismissal rule under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) would convert a second voluntary dismissal to a dismissal with prejudice, but Patent Armory has not previously dismissed a similar action against Campus Protein on the public record.
The patents cover intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and entity-matching methods for auction-style routing. Businesses that operate IVR systems, contact-centre routing software, online customer-matching platforms, or auction-based lead distribution — common in e-commerce and direct-to-consumer retail — may face exposure to similarly structured claims from this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.