Patent Armory v. CICI Enterprises: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed Without Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against CICI Enterprises, LP in the Delaware District Court asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case closed in just 60 days, with all claims against CICI dismissed without prejudice under a Rule 41 stipulation, each party bearing its own costs.
Five-Patent Call Routing Dispute Resolved in 60 Days in Delaware
Patent Armory, Inc. filed this infringement action on 24 August 2023 in the Delaware District Court before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity matching methods. The accused party, CICI Enterprises, LP, was represented by Fish & Richardson PC.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), states that the parties stipulated to dismiss all claims against CICI Enterprises, LP with prejudice and all counterclaims against Patent Armory Inc. without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed on 23 October 2023 — just 60 days after filing. The specific circumstances that led to the stipulated dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. What drove the resolution at this early stage, and whether any commercial arrangement exists between the parties, remains unknown from the record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 60 days
Case resolved in 60 days — well below median patent case duration in Delaware
US9456086B1 — Intelligent Communication Routing System and Method
Any product or platform team building or acquiring intelligent call routing, telephony control, IVR, or auction-based call matching technology should treat this five-patent portfolio as a live risk. The absence of a merits ruling in this case means no judicial narrowing of claims has occurred. R&D and product teams at contact centre vendors, performance marketing platforms, and telecoms middleware providers are the most directly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation, entered under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), reflects a bilateral agreed resolution rather than any judicial finding on infringement or validity. The asymmetric structure — claims against CICI dismissed with prejudice, counterclaims against Patent Armory dismissed without prejudice — is the precise characterisation in the docket order; the recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' No court entered findings on the merits of any of the five asserted patents.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal: how the case ended procedurally
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows parties to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order when all appearing parties consent. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order states claims against CICI were dismissed with prejudice while counterclaims against Patent Armory were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs.
Rule 41 stipulated dismissalCounterclaims dismissed without prejudice: what that means for CICI
The docket order states that CICI Enterprises' counterclaims against Patent Armory were dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice on counterclaims preserves the right to re-file those claims. However, the specific terms and any conditions attached are not disclosed in the available public record.
Counterclaims preservedFive patents asserted — enforceability implications post-dismissal
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice, meaning Patent Armory's five asserted patents — covering call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — have not been adjudicated on the merits in this action. The patents remain in force unless and until invalidated through a separate proceeding. Patent Armory retains the ability to assert these patents against other parties.
Patents remain enforceableEarly resolution signals: what the 60-day timeline means for the sector
A case resolving in 60 days — before any substantive rulings — leaves the asserted call routing and telephony patents without a judicial record on validity or infringement. Companies operating intelligent communication routing or auction-based call matching systems that may overlap with these five patents face continued uncertainty. No precedent was established that would narrow or clarify the scope of the asserted claims.
No merits rulingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CICI Enterprises, LP | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Phillips , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Megan C. Haney | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Douglas Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for CICI Enterprises, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing CICI Enterprises, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the intelligent call routing and telephony space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Patent Armory's five-patent assertion across call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching.
Patent Armory's call routing portfolio: assertion breadth and filing history
Patent Armory holds at least five patents spanning multiple application generations in intelligent call routing and telephony control. Portfolio analysis can reveal whether additional continuation or divisional applications are pending, which would extend the assertion risk horizon for companies in the contact centre and performance marketing sectors.
Portfolio monitoringFiling trends in intelligent call routing and auction-based matching
The asserted patents cover both real-time telephony routing and auction-based entity matching — two converging technology areas driven by AI-enhanced contact centre platforms and performance marketing. Tracking patent filing trends in these adjacent spaces can reveal which players are building defensive or offensive portfolios around similar routing and matching architectures.
Filing trend analysisCICI Enterprises' patent position in the franchising and call management space
CICI Enterprises, LP operates in the restaurant franchising sector where customer communication and order routing systems are increasingly technology-intensive. Assessing whether CICI holds or licenses relevant IP in call management or customer routing can inform how similarly positioned franchise operators should structure their IP defence strategies.
Defendant IP landscapeAdjacent white space: AI-driven routing beyond the asserted claims
The five asserted patents focus on rule-based and auction-driven routing architectures. Emerging AI and machine-learning-driven call routing, real-time sentiment-based routing, and conversational AI handoff systems may represent white space adjacent to — but potentially outside — the scope of the asserted claims. R&D teams should map this boundary carefully.
Innovation white spaceSimilar call routing and telephony patent cases in Delaware District Court
Explore patent infringement actions involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based communication systems in the Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the call routing IP landscape
Five call routing patents, no merits ruling, and a 60-day close — the IP risk in this domain remains unresolved.
These five patents remain fully enforceable against other defendants
Because the case was dismissed without a merits ruling, US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 survive intact. Any company offering intelligent call routing, telephony control, or auction-based entity matching systems should monitor Patent Armory's filing and assertion activity closely.
Early dismissal without prejudice is a recurring pattern in PAE litigation
Patent assertion entities frequently file and resolve cases rapidly. A 60-day resolution with no disclosed terms and each party bearing its own costs is consistent with early-stage resolution dynamics. It does not signal weakness or strength in the underlying patents — the merits were never tested in this case.
Patent v CICI — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These cover intelligent communication routing systems and methods, auction-based entity matching systems, and telephony control systems with intelligent call routing.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order, entered under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), states that claims against CICI Enterprises were dismissed with prejudice and counterclaims against Patent Armory were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs. The specific terms driving the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
No merits ruling was issued in this case, meaning the five asserted patents were not adjudicated for validity or infringement. The patents remain in force and Patent Armory retains the ability to assert them against other parties. Companies in the intelligent call routing and telephony space should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
The case closed 60 days after filing, before any substantive court rulings. The specific circumstances that led to the early stipulated dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. The timeline is consistent with early-stage resolution, but no further detail can be derived from the docket.
The case was filed in the Delaware District Court and assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Patent Armory was represented by Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA, and CICI Enterprises was represented by Fish & Richardson PC.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.