Patent Armory v. Choice Hotels: Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice After 662 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Choice Hotels International in the Western District of Texas asserting two patents — US9456086B1 covering auction-based entity matching and US7023979B1 covering intelligent telephony call routing. The case ended when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs, after nearly two years of litigation.
Two-Patent Assertion Against Choice Hotels Ends at Plaintiff’s Volition
On 14 August 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. — a non-practising entity represented by Rabicoff Law LLC — filed suit against Choice Hotels International, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00594) before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted two patents: US9456086B1, directed to a method and system for matching entities in an auction, and US7023979B1, directed to a telephony control system with intelligent call routing.
The case closed on 6 June 2025 when Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Choice Hotels had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment at the time of dismissal, the plaintiff retained the unilateral right to dismiss without court approval. The with-prejudice designation, however, extinguishes Patent Armory’s ability to reassert these patents against Choice Hotels in future litigation.
A 662-day duration before a unilateral Rule 41 dismissal is notably long, typically suggesting the parties explored settlement or the plaintiff reconsidered claim strength following pre-answer proceedings. The public record does not confirm whether a confidential settlement was reached; the cost-neutrality clause is consistent with either a negotiated resolution or straightforward withdrawal. The absence of any fee award leaves the litigation cost burden symmetric on the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 662 days
662 days — well above the median W.D. Tex. patent case duration before voluntary dismissal
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral dismissal before answer
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Patent Armory exercised that right — but elected to dismiss with prejudice, a self-imposed and irrevocable restriction. The with-prejudice designation transforms a procedural exit into a permanent bar on re-litigation of the same claims against Choice Hotels.
Voluntary, unilateral, permanentPatent Armory surrenders all claims against Choice Hotels permanently
By dismissing with prejudice, Patent Armory forfeits any future right to assert US9456086B1 or US7023979B1 against Choice Hotels on the facts alleged. The patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other defendants, but this specific enforcement avenue is permanently closed. The cost-neutral clause means Patent Armory also bears its own legal spend without recovery — a significant outcome after 662 days of proceedings.
Claims extinguished vs. Choice HotelsChoice Hotels secures permanent immunity on these two patents
Choice Hotels exits the litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — effectively a permanent shield against these specific patent claims from this plaintiff. The hotel group incurred its own legal fees without recovery, but avoids any finding of infringement, damages exposure, or injunctive risk. The absence of a merits ruling means Choice Hotels has no formal claim-construction record it could invoke offensively in other proceedings.
Full immunity, no merits rulingPatents survive; assertion risk remains for other hospitality operators
US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Other hospitality-sector businesses using auction-based matching or intelligent telephony routing systems — such as online travel platforms or hotel reservation systems — should note that Patent Armory retains full enforcement rights against them. The lack of claim construction or invalidity findings from this case offers no prior-art shield to future defendants.
Risk persists for sector peersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Non-practising patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and US7023979B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Choice Hotels International, Inc. | Company | Choice Hotels International, Inc. — major hospitality and hotel franchising groupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac 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 | Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for Choice Hotels International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric H. Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Choice Hotels International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Choice Hotels International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the pre-answer unilateral dismissal route — and expressly designates the dismissal as with prejudice. The cost-neutral rider (‘each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees’) is a standard clause in negotiated exits but also common in purely voluntary withdrawals. No merits adjudication occurred; there is no claim construction order, no invalidity finding, and no infringement determination. Both patents therefore retain their full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
US9456086B1 & US7023979B1 — Auction Matching and Intelligent Call Routing
US9456086B1 (application no. US12/719827) covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction — technology applicable to dynamic pricing engines, real-time inventory matching, and bidding-based reservation platforms. US7023979B1 (application no. US10/385389) covers a telephony control system with intelligent call routing, relevant to automated hotel reservation lines, contact centres, and unified communications infrastructure. Both patents are granted US utility patents and carry a full presumption of validity with no adverse claim-construction record in this case.
The pairing of an auction-matching patent with a call-routing patent against a major hotel franchisor suggests a broad reading of Choice Hotels’ digital and telephony reservation infrastructure. For the hospitality sector, this case signals that legacy telephony and dynamic pricing IP remain active assertion targets. Competitors and platform vendors in adjacent spaces — online travel agencies, property management systems, and contact-centre vendors — should treat both patents as live enforcement assets now that no adverse ruling constrains their scope.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and US7023979B1?
Any company operating auction-based or dynamic-pricing room reservation systems, or deploying intelligent call-routing infrastructure in the hospitality or travel sector, should assess exposure to these two patents. The Choice Hotels dismissal created no invalidity precedent and no claim-construction guidance. Online travel platforms, hotel management software vendors, and contact-centre providers serving hotel chains are among the highest-risk categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables your IP or R&D team to map claim language from US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 against your product architecture in minutes. The tool surfaces prior art candidates, identifies claim elements most likely to read on your system, and benchmarks the assertion history of both patents — giving you the evidence base to make a defensible clearance decision before the next enforcement action lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: auction-matching and telephony IP in W.D. Texas
Cases involving NPE assertion of auction-matching and telephony call-routing patents in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright, including comparable Rule 41 dismissals.
What this case signals for the hospitality and telephony IP landscape
A 662-day assertion ending in with-prejudice dismissal raises questions about assertion strategy, claim durability, and venue dynamics in W.D. Tex.
With-prejudice dismissal after 662 days suggests claim durability pressure
A plaintiff that survives nearly two years of litigation before electing a with-prejudice exit typically faced substantive headwinds — whether claim construction risk, prior art surfaced during discovery, or an unfavourable licensing calculus. The public record is silent on specifics, but the pattern is consistent with weakening leverage rather than a clean commercial settlement.
Judge Albright’s docket remains a key venue signal for NPE defendants
Despite recent standing-order reforms, W.D. Tex. under Judge Albright continues to attract patent assertion filings. Defendants in the hospitality and technology-services sectors should monitor new filings in this court and assess early motion strategies — particularly given that a pre-answer dismissal here left no claim-construction record on either patent.
Patent v Choice — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Patent Armory from reasserting US9456086B1 or US7023979B1 against Choice Hotels on the same claims. The patents remain enforceable against all other parties; only Choice Hotels obtains this permanent immunity. No merits ruling was issued, so neither patent’s validity was adjudicated.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice and cost-neutral clause are consistent with either a confidential licensing resolution or a straightforward withdrawal by the plaintiff. Without a public settlement agreement on file, it is not possible to confirm either interpretation from available court documents.
US9456086B1 covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction — technology potentially applicable to dynamic room pricing, real-time inventory allocation, and bidding-based reservation systems. It was asserted against Choice Hotels likely on the basis that the hotel chain’s booking or revenue-management infrastructure employed methods that read on the patent’s claims.
Yes. The dismissal was voluntary and without any merits adjudication, meaning US7023979B1 retains its full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. No claim construction order or invalidity finding was issued in this case. Patent Armory may enforce the patent against any third party not protected by this specific dismissal.
The Western District of Texas, particularly before Judge Alan D. Albright, has been a preferred venue for non-practising entity patent assertions due to historically fast scheduling, plaintiff-friendly procedural norms, and broad venue acceptance before recent reforms. Patent Armory’s selection of this district is consistent with a broader NPE litigation strategy targeting efficient case progression and early settlement leverage.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.