Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Patent Armory v. CICI Enterprises, LP | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00930

Patent Armory, Inc. v. CICI Enterprises, LP

1:23-cv-00930 D. Del. Closed 5 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 24 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 23 Oct 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
1:23-cv-00930
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Maryellen Noreika
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
24 Aug 2023 – 23 Oct 2023
Duration
60 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Intelligent communication routing system and method · Method and system for matching entities in an auction · Telephony control system with intelligent call routing
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00930, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9456086B1 Active App. US12/719827

Method and system for matching entities in an auction

A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
27 Sep 2016
Earliest priority
7 Mar 2003
Est. expiry
26 Aug 2027
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04M3/00H04M5/00H04M3/523
Prosecution counsel
Hoffberg & Associates
Examiner
NGUYEN, KHAI N
US9456086B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9456086B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US10491748B1 Active App. US15/797070

Intelligent communication routing system and method

A communications routing system, and method, for representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility; representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets each having an economic utility; and determining an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination represented by linkages.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
26 Nov 2019
Earliest priority
3 Apr 2006
Est. expiry
24 May 2027
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04M3/00H04M5/00H04M3/523H04L29/06H04L12/66
Prosecution counsel
Hoffberg & Associates
Examiner
NGUYEN, QUYNH H
US10491748B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10491748B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

3 more

The docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims against CiCi Enterprises, LP WITH PREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Patent Armory Inc. WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 1:23-cv-00930 · D. Del. · closed 23 October 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:23-cv-00930?

1:23-cv-00930 is a patent infringement action brought by Patent Armory, Inc. against CICI Enterprises, LP, filed on 24 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 23 October 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00930?

US9456086B1 (“Method and system for matching entities in an auction”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently active; US10491748B1 (“Intelligent communication routing system and method”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently active; US7269253B1 (“Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC.; US7023979B1 (“Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC.; US10237420B1 (“Method and system for matching entities in an auction”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC.. The record also lists Intelligent communication routing system and method, Method and system for matching entities in an auction and Telephony control system with intelligent call routing.

How was case 1:23-cv-00930 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims against CiCi Enterprises, LP WITH PREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Patent Armory Inc. WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 1:23-cv-00930 take?

60 calendar days, from filing on 24 Aug 2023 to closure on 23 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00930?

Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. John C. Phillips Jr. and Megan C. Haney are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Patent Armory. Jeremy Douglas Anderson appears for defendant CICI Enterprises, LP.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00930 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00930 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.