Patent Armory v. Carnival Corp.: Five-Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 57 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five US patents covering telephony routing and contact centre systems against Carnival Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting Carnival’s Verint-powered customer communications platform. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before Carnival filed an answer — closing the case in just 57 days.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissal closes five-patent cruise industry suit
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Carnival Corporation & PLC on 21 November 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00959) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of five US patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — all directed to telephony, call routing, and contact centre technologies. The accused product was identified as Carnival Cruise Line’s deployment of the Verint contact centre platform.
Just 57 days after filing, Patent Armory filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissed all claims with prejudice, and directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No counterclaims, invalidity findings, or merits rulings were issued.
The 57-day duration and pre-answer timing suggest the parties likely reached an agreement — whether a licence, covenant not to sue, or simple walk-away — outside the formal court record. The public docket does not disclose settlement terms, making the financial outcome unknown. The with-prejudice designation means Patent Armory cannot reassert these same five patents against Carnival in any future action, which is commercially significant regardless of whether compensation changed hands.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 57 days
57 days — well below the typical E.D. Texas first-instance litigation timeline of 18–24 months
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order — and without the defendant’s consent — provided the defendant has not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment. Here, Carnival had not yet answered, so Patent Armory exercised this right unilaterally. Critically, it elected dismissal with prejudice, converting a procedural exit into a permanent bar against re-filing the same claims against Carnival.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no court order requiredWith prejudice: these five patents cannot be re-asserted against Carnival
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-filing infringement claims on US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 against Carnival in any US court. This is a stronger concession than a typical voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether a licence or payment accompanied the dismissal.
Permanent bar on reassertion vs. CarnivalPatent Armory exits with no public win — but retains patents against others
Patent Armory closes this action without any court-validated infringement finding or damages award on the public record. However, the five asserted patents remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants in the cruise, hospitality, or contact centre sectors. The with-prejudice dismissal is Carnival-specific — it does not limit Patent Armory’s ability to pursue other targets deploying similar Verint-style contact centre architectures.
Patents survive — other defendants remain at riskVerint deployers in travel and hospitality should note the patent portfolio
The case targeted Carnival’s use of Verint contact centre technology, suggesting Patent Armory views this platform deployment as within the scope of its telephony patent portfolio. Other cruise lines, hospitality groups, and travel companies running Verint or comparable IVR/ACD contact centre systems may face similar assertions. The absence of any invalidity or non-infringement ruling means the legal strength of these five patents remains untested by a court.
Verint ecosystem — watch for further assertionsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four further telephony/contact centre patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Carnival Corp. & PLC | Company | Global cruise operator; accused of infringing patents through its Verint contact centre deploymentSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | T. Vann Pearce , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Carnival Corp. & PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing Carnival Corp. & PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice is administrative rather than adjudicative — no infringement finding, invalidity ruling, or claim construction was issued. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal consequence: it extinguishes Patent Armory’s right to re-assert these five patents against Carnival under the doctrine of res judicata. The mutual cost-bearing order reflects the Rule 41 default and does not indicate which party, if any, extracted commercial value in a parallel negotiation.
US9456086B1 — telephony routing and contact centre systems
The five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — span application dates ranging from the early 2000s through 2017, reflecting a portfolio built across multiple technology generations of telephony and contact centre infrastructure. The patents cover call routing logic, automated call distribution (ACD), interactive voice response (IVR), and related contact centre communications architectures. The B1 designation on all five patents indicates they issued without any substantive examination amendment, suggesting the claims were accepted largely as filed.
This portfolio is strategically positioned to capture modern enterprise contact centre deployments, including cloud-hosted platforms such as Verint. The breadth of filing dates means the claims may read on both legacy PSTN-era routing systems and contemporary SIP/VoIP-based architectures. For the cruise, hospitality, and travel sectors — which operate high-volume inbound contact centres — the portfolio represents a credible assertion risk. No court has ruled on the validity or infringement scope of any of these five patents, leaving their enforceability legally untested.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any organisation operating a contact centre platform — particularly one using Verint, NICE, Genesys, or comparable ACD/IVR systems — should consider whether the Patent Armory telephony portfolio intersects with its infrastructure. The five patents cover call routing and distribution logic that is architecturally common across enterprise contact centres in hospitality, travel, financial services, and retail. The absence of a merits ruling in this case means no prior art or non-infringement arguments have been tested in litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 against your product architecture, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and identify whether Patent Armory has asserted these patents in other pending actions. Running an automated FTO now — before receiving a demand letter — is significantly more cost-effective than responding to litigation in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar telephony patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving contact centre and telephony routing patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, including other Patent Armory assertions.
What this case signals for the contact centre and hospitality IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas rarely tells the full story — here is what practitioners and product teams should take away.
Five telephony patents remain active enforcement tools against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal binds Patent Armory only as against Carnival. US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 are still live and unlitigated on the merits. Companies in hospitality, travel, or any sector deploying cloud or legacy contact centre systems should treat these patents as active assertion risk — particularly if they use Verint or architecturally similar platforms.
Pre-answer resolution in E.D. Texas suggests rapid off-record negotiation
Cases before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas rarely close in 57 days without some form of negotiation. The voluntary dismissal with a mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a structured resolution — licence, covenant not to sue, or a walk-away — even if no terms appear in the public docket. Patent attorneys monitoring PAE activity in E.D. Texas should note this pattern as indicative of plaintiff leverage prior to answer.
Patent v Carnival — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Patent Armory under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 17 January 2025. No settlement terms appear in the public record. The with-prejudice designation means Patent Armory cannot re-assert the five asserted patents against Carnival in future litigation.
Patent Armory asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. All five are directed to telephony routing and contact centre communications systems. No court issued a merits ruling on any of these patents in this action.
The accused product was identified as Carnival Cruise Line’s deployment of the Verint contact centre platform, referenced in the docket as ‘Carnival Cruise Line Sets Sail with Verint.’ This suggests the infringement theory targeted Carnival’s use of Verint’s ACD or IVR contact centre architecture.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without court order before the defendant answers. Carnival had not yet answered, so Patent Armory exercised this right. By electing dismissal with prejudice, Patent Armory permanently relinquished its right to sue Carnival on these five patents — equivalent to a merits adjudication for res judicata purposes. Carnival bears no ongoing litigation exposure on these specific patents.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal is Carnival-specific. All five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. Companies in hospitality, travel, or any sector using Verint-style contact centre platforms should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.