Patent Armory v. CBC Restaurant Corp: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed in One Day
Patent Armory Inc filed suit against CBC Restaurant Corp in the Northern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case was voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just one day after filing — before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
A Five-Patent Telephony Suit That Lasted Less Than 24 Hours
On 17 June 2024, Patent Armory Inc filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:24-cv-01498) against CBC Restaurant Corp, asserting five patents spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching in communications networks. The asserted patents include US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — a portfolio covering multiple generations of call-routing and customer-engagement technology.
The case closed on 18 June 2024 — one day after filing — when plaintiff Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice confirms that defendant CBC Restaurant Corp had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for a unilateral dismissal by notice. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice under Rule 41.
A one-day turnaround is highly atypical and suggests the dismissal may have been prompted by rapid pre-litigation settlement discussions, a filing error, a wrong-defendant identification, or strategic reconsideration — though none of these explanations can be confirmed from the docket alone. No defendant counsel was entered, no cost order was issued, and Judge Brantley Starr made no substantive ruling. The underlying merits of the five asserted patents against CBC Restaurant Corp remain entirely unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1 days
Closed in 1 day — exceptionally short; most patent cases run 2–3 years to resolution
Voluntarily dismissed: what a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before response
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 serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a procedural right, not a judicial ruling. No merits determination was made. The notice itself is self-executing — the case terminates upon filing, with no judicial approval required.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless the notice expressly states otherwise or a prior dismissal of the same claim triggers the ‘two-dismissal rule’ under 41(a)(1)(B). The docket records only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ as the basis of termination without specifying prejudice. This means refiling against CBC Restaurant Corp on these patents may be possible, but practitioners should verify whether any prior dismissal of the same claims exists.
Refiling risk unresolvedCBC Restaurant Corp exits without judgment — but IP exposure persists
CBC Restaurant Corp was dismissed without ever filing a response. No invalidity arguments were raised, no non-infringement positions were tested, and no fees were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285. If the dismissal was without prejudice, CBC remains exposed to re-assertion of all five patents. The absence of any ruling means the defendant has no estoppel or res judicata protection from future suits on the same patents.
No § 285 fee awardFive patents filed and withdrawn: a pattern worth monitoring
Patent Armory’s decision to assert five call-routing patents simultaneously and then withdraw within 24 hours is consistent with patterns seen in patent assertion entity (PAE) campaigns — where complaints are filed to initiate licensing pressure and withdrawn if rapid resolution is reached. Businesses operating telephony, customer-routing, or IVR-adjacent systems should monitor this portfolio for renewed enforcement activity against industry peers.
PAE enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory Inc | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, US10237420Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CBC Restaurant Corp | Company | CBC Restaurant Corp — restaurant industry operator named as defendant in call routing patent suitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Brantley Starr | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms the procedural precondition — that defendant had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. This language is standard and forecloses any argument that court approval was required. Critically, no merits ruling, claim construction, or validity determination was issued. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ appears in the verdict text, which suggests — though does not conclusively establish — that Patent Armory retains the right to refile these five claims against CBC Restaurant Corp or other defendants.
US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, US10237420 — Intelligent Call Routing Portfolio
The five asserted patents span application filing dates ranging from the early 2000s (US10/385389 and US11/387305) through to 2017 (US15/856729 and US15/797070), reflecting a multi-generational portfolio built around intelligent call routing and telephony control. The patents cover core methods for routing communications based on dynamic parameters, auction-based matching of callers to agents or services, and system-level architectures for intelligent telephony management — technology domains that underpin modern contact centre and IVR infrastructure.
This portfolio’s strategic breadth — spanning both method and system claims across five patents — creates overlapping assertion vectors against organisations operating cloud contact centres, VoIP platforms, restaurant reservation systems, or any telephony middleware that routes customer calls. The inclusion of an auction-based entity-matching patent (US7023979) is particularly notable, as this claim structure can potentially read on dynamic call queue optimisation and automated agent-selection algorithms widely deployed in modern CRM-integrated phone systems.
Should you run an FTO against Patent Armory’s call routing portfolio?
Any organisation deploying intelligent call routing, IVR systems, cloud contact centre platforms, or auction-based call allocation should assess exposure against this five-patent cluster. The portfolio’s breadth — spanning system and method claims from multiple filing generations — means that product teams building or procuring telephony middleware, CRM-integrated routing, or automated agent-matching systems face non-trivial freedom-to-operate questions. The restaurant and hospitality sector, as demonstrated by this case, is not immune.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product legal teams to map claim language across US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, and US10237420 against your specific technology stack. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies continuation filing activity, and flags related pending applications — providing the structured analysis needed to assess whether your telephony or call-routing deployment falls within the scope of any live claim in this portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Call Routing & Telephony Patent Cases in Federal District Courts
Cases involving intelligent call routing and telephony control patents filed in the Northern District of Texas and peer district courts, with comparable PAE assertion patterns.
What this case signals for the telephony and call routing IP landscape
A one-day patent suit involving five call-routing patents points to active assertion pressure on telephony-adjacent businesses across sectors.
Restaurant and hospitality operators face non-obvious telephony patent exposure
CBC Restaurant Corp’s inclusion as a defendant highlights that call-routing patent risk extends beyond telecom and software companies. Any business operating customer-facing telephone systems, IVR platforms, or routing middleware may fall within the scope of Patent Armory’s portfolio. In-house teams in hospitality, retail, and foodservice should audit their telephony stack against this five-patent cluster.
Rule 41 dismissals without prejudice preserve future enforcement rights
When a patent assertion entity voluntarily dismisses before a defendant responds, the patent holder retains the option to refile. Companies dismissed in this manner should not treat the outcome as a clean resolution. Monitoring for re-assertion — particularly as related continuation patents issue — is prudent practice for any organisation previously named in a Patent Armory complaint.
Patent v CBC — key questions answered
Patent Armory Inc filed a patent infringement action against CBC Restaurant Corp on 17 June 2024 in the Northern District of Texas, asserting five call-routing and telephony patents. The case was voluntarily dismissed the following day under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant filed any response. No merits ruling was issued.
Patent Armory asserted US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control architectures, and auction-based entity matching methods — technology relevant to IVR systems, contact centres, and automated call routing platforms.
Not necessarily. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is presumed without prejudice unless stated otherwise or the two-dismissal rule applies under 41(a)(1)(B). The public record does not specify prejudice terms. Patent Armory may retain the right to refile against CBC Restaurant Corp or assert the same patents against other defendants in future proceedings.
A one-day filing-to-dismissal interval most commonly suggests rapid pre-litigation settlement or licensing agreement, a filing error corrected before service, wrong-party identification, or strategic withdrawal. None of these explanations can be confirmed from the public docket. The absence of defendant counsel entry and any fee motion further limits the inferential value of the record.
CBC Restaurant Corp received no merits ruling, no invalidity determination, and no fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Without a judgment on the merits, the company has no res judicata or estoppel protection against future assertion of the same five patents. Organisations in a similar position should monitor the plaintiff’s portfolio for continuation patents and renewed enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.