Patent Armory v. CEC Entertainment — Dismissed With Prejudice in 143 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. sued CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-matching systems. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 143 days after filing, before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Five-patent call routing suit exits W.D. Texas in under five months
On 3 October 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed Case No. 6:23-cv-00693 in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting infringement of five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The asserted patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method-and-system approaches to matching entities in an auction context. The defendant, CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP — the operator of Chuck E. Cheese family entertainment venues — was represented by DLA Piper US LLP.
The case closed on 23 February 2024, just 143 days after filing. Patent Armory’s counsel, Rabicoff Law LLC, filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a procedural mechanism available only before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. CEC Entertainment had not yet done either. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, meaning no financial award was entered in favour of either party.
The rapid resolution — before any substantive responsive pleading — is consistent with pre-answer settlements or licence agreements negotiated outside the court record, though the public record does not confirm any such arrangement. The with-prejudice designation is notable: Patent Armory permanently forfeited the right to reassert these five patents against CEC Entertainment on the same claims. What drove the decision to dismiss — whether a commercial resolution, an assessment of invalidity risk, or a strategic portfolio review — remains undisclosed.
Filing to resolution in 143 days
Resolved in 143 days — well under the median for multi-patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-executing dismissal before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order simply by filing a notice, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No judicial approval is needed. Here, Patent Armory exercised this right unilaterally. Because the notice specified ‘with prejudice’, the dismissal is final and operates as an adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing the claims.
Self-executing — no court order neededWith prejudice: these claims are permanently closed
A dismissal with prejudice bars Patent Armory from ever refiling the same infringement claims against CEC Entertainment under these five patents. This is a stronger outcome for the defendant than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open for re-filing. The practical significance depends on whether a licence or settlement was reached privately — the public record does not disclose any such agreement.
Permanent bar on re-filingEach party bears own costs — no fee-shifting applied
The dismissal notice stipulates that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No motion for exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was pursued. This mutual cost allocation is common in early dismissals and is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested ruling. It also means CEC Entertainment did not obtain any financial recovery despite the with-prejudice designation.
No § 285 fee motion filedFive patents asserted — call routing portfolio under NPE model
Patent Armory asserted a cluster of five patents spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-entity matching — a breadth typical of non-practising entity litigation strategies. Asserting multiple patents in a single complaint raises the cost of defence and complicates IPR strategy for defendants. The early dismissal with prejudice here suggests the dispute was resolved on commercial terms before any invalidity or non-infringement defences were formally tested.
NPE multi-patent assertion 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 | Cec Entertainment Concepts, LP | Company | CEC Entertainment Concepts, LP — operator of Chuck E. Cheese family entertainment centre chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Cec Entertainment Concepts, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly designates the dismissal as with prejudice — a combination that is legally unusual, since Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notices are by default without prejudice unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise. By electing with-prejudice status, Patent Armory permanently extinguished its own claims, giving CEC Entertainment a stronger defensive posture than a standard voluntary dismissal. The mutual cost-bearing term suggests neither party extracted financial concessions through the court mechanism, though any private commercial resolution remains outside the public record.
US9456086B1 and portfolio — intelligent communication routing systems
The five asserted patents span application numbers filed across a wide window, from US10/385389 (the earliest priority family) through to US15/856729. The technical subject matter centres on three domains: intelligent routing of communications (directing inbound calls or messages based on dynamic criteria), telephony control systems with embedded routing logic, and auction-style entity-matching methods that algorithmically pair requestors with respondents. These are foundational software-implemented method claims that tend to be broadly drafted and potentially mappable across multiple commercial implementations of contact centre, IVR, or routing middleware software.
For the entertainment and hospitality sector — where customer-facing telephony, venue reservation systems, and loyalty programme contact infrastructure are common — these patent claims represent a credible assertion vector. The fact that Patent Armory targeted CEC Entertainment specifically suggests the patents were identified as potentially reading on communication systems used in venue operations or customer contact management. The portfolio’s age (earliest priority families date to the mid-2000s) means the core claims have survived multiple prosecution cycles, though each patent would still face validity scrutiny in IPR proceedings.
Should your product team run an FTO against this call routing patent portfolio?
Any company deploying intelligent call routing, IVR systems, contact centre software, or auction-style matching algorithms in a customer-facing product should treat this five-patent portfolio as a live risk signal. The asserted patents cover method claims — meaning the risk attaches to how a system operates, not merely its hardware configuration. Entertainment venues, hospitality chains, SaaS contact centre vendors, and telecom middleware providers are all potentially within scope of the claim language.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map specific product features against the independent claims of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 in a structured analysis workflow. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert your team if any of these patents are cited in new continuation filings or assigned to new assertion entities — a key signal that a licensing campaign may be expanding.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar call routing and telephony patent cases in W.D. Texas
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the telephony IP licensing landscape
A five-patent NPE assertion resolved in under five months points to patterns worth tracking across the call routing and communication technology IP space.
Pre-answer dismissals often mask private licence agreements
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, the most commercially logical explanation is a negotiated resolution — whether a licence, a lump-sum payment, or a covenant not to sue. Companies in the entertainment and hospitality sector operating communication infrastructure should assess whether similar assertions are circulating.
W.D. Texas remains a live venue for NPE call routing assertions
Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract non-practising entity filings in the communications technology space. Even cases that resolve quickly impose defence costs. In-house teams should monitor new filings against peer companies as an early warning signal of patent assertion campaigns targeting the sector.
Patent v Cec — key questions answered
The public record does not disclose the reason. Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before CEC Entertainment had answered. This is consistent with a private commercial resolution — such as a licence or covenant not to sue — but no such agreement has been publicly confirmed.
It means Patent Armory is permanently barred from refiling the same infringement claims against CEC Entertainment under the five asserted patents. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) normally permits dismissal without prejudice, but Patent Armory explicitly elected with-prejudice status, making the dismissal operate as a final adjudication on the merits in CEC’s favour.
Five patents were asserted: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method-and-system approaches to matching entities in an auction. Application numbers span from early-2000s priority dates to mid-2010s filings.
Patent Armory was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. CEC Entertainment was represented by Jennifer Librach Nall of DLA Piper US LLP. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.
No. The dismissal notice stipulates that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No motion for exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was filed. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with an early negotiated exit rather than a litigated outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.