Patent Armory v. CNO Financial Group: Five-Patent Call Routing Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against CNO Financial Group in the Delaware District Court asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after 287 days — before CNO filed any answer or dispositive motion.
Five-Patent Telephony Suit Against CNO Financial Ends Before First Answer
On June 10, 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-00681) against CNO Financial Group, Inc., a major insurance holding company. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control technology with intelligent call routing.
On March 24, 2025, Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, terminating all claims against CNO Financial Group. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits, meaning Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these five patents against CNO in federal court.
The case resolved in approximately nine months — before CNO filed any answer or motion for summary judgment, which is significant because Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) only permits unilateral plaintiff dismissal at that pre-answer stage. The early exit, combined with a with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing, suggests the parties reached a private resolution or Patent Armory concluded the litigation was not commercially viable to pursue further. The underlying terms of any such arrangement are not reflected in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 287 days
287 days — resolved before answer or summary judgment motion filed
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits unilateral exit — but only once
Because CNO had not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, Patent Armory could dismiss unilaterally without court approval under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Crucially, the plaintiff elected to make this dismissal with prejudice — a voluntary upgrade from the default without-prejudice outcome. This is a one-way door: the claims are extinguished as a matter of law and cannot be relitigated against CNO in any federal forum.
Permanent bar on re-filingPatent Armory permanently surrenders its claims against CNO
A with-prejudice dismissal functions as a final judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes. Patent Armory cannot re-assert US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, or US10237420B1 against CNO Financial Group in any subsequent action. The patents themselves remain in force against third parties, but this defendant is now shielded from further assertion by Patent Armory on these claims.
Claims extinguished vs. CNOCNO exits without admitting liability and without paying legal costs
CNO Financial Group achieved a clean exit: no judgment against it, no admission of infringement, and no cost exposure beyond its own legal spend. The mutual cost-bearing provision means CNO will not recover its attorneys’ fees from Patent Armory. Because no answer was filed, CNO was never required to present its invalidity or non-infringement defenses, leaving those positions untested on the public record.
No liability, no cost awardEarly resolution signals patent assertion calculus — or a private deal
The combination of a with-prejudice election and mutual fee-bearing is consistent with either a confidential licensing settlement or a strategic withdrawal after early due diligence. For insurers and financial services firms operating call routing and telephony infrastructure, the five asserted patents remain active and could be reasserted against other defendants. Companies in this sector should monitor Patent Armory’s assertion activity and run FTO analysis against their own routing systems.
Sector risk remains for othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four related telephony routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CNO Financial Group | Company | CNO Financial Group — insurance holding company, defendant in five-patent infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig N. Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dominick T. Gattuso | Attorney | Counsel for CNO Financial GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing CNO Financial GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming that CNO filed neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment — a procedural prerequisite for unilateral plaintiff dismissal. The explicit with-prejudice designation is plaintiff-elected and elevates the dismissal to a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. The mutual cost-bearing provision forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion by either party. No merits findings were made regarding infringement, validity, or claim scope of the five asserted patents.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and related telephony patents
The five asserted patents span two technology clusters: intelligent call routing systems (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US10237420B1) and telephony control with entity-matching methods (US7269253B1, US7023979B1). The application dates range from the mid-2000s (US10/385389 and US11/387305) through to late 2010s filings, suggesting a portfolio built through continuation and continuation-in-part prosecution over more than a decade. The core technical claims relate to dynamic routing of telephone communications based on real-time decision logic and auction-style matching of callers to agents or services.
This patent portfolio is strategically positioned to capture value from the broad deployment of IVR, ACD, and intelligent routing platforms in financial services, insurance, and contact centre operations. The combination of telephony control patents and auction-based matching claims creates overlapping coverage that can be asserted against both infrastructure providers and end-user operators. For insurers and financial services firms, the persistence of this portfolio post-dismissal — with no invalidity finding on record — means ongoing exposure for any company operating similar routing architecture.
Should your contact centre run an FTO against US9456086B1 and related patents?
Any financial services firm, insurer, or contact centre operator deploying intelligent call routing, dynamic agent matching, or auction-based call distribution logic should assess its exposure against this five-patent portfolio. The asserted patents cover both the system architecture and the method steps of routing decisions, meaning both platform vendors and enterprise operators may face assertion risk. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case leaves the patent claims unchallenged on the public record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your call routing product architecture against the claim language in US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — identifying overlapping claim elements and surfacing prior art relevant to validity challenges. R&D and product teams building or procuring telephony infrastructure can use Eureka to generate a structured FTO report, flag claim-by-claim risk, and identify design-around pathways before Patent Armory files its next action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar telephony patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and PAE assertion in the Delaware District Court — comparable in technology domain and procedural posture to Patent Armory v. CNO Financial Group.
What this case signals for the telephony and financial services IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved before any merits ruling raises questions about enforcement strategy and residual risk for the sector.
With-prejudice dismissal closes the door on CNO — not on the patents
Patent Armory’s five telephony and call routing patents survive this dismissal fully intact for assertion against any other party. The with-prejudice designation is CNO-specific. Financial services firms and insurers operating similar call routing infrastructure should treat this case as a warning signal rather than a sector-wide resolution.
Pre-answer exits under Rule 41 are a common PAE tactic — scrutinise cost terms
Patent assertion entities frequently use Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to exit cases before costly discovery. The mutual cost-bearing provision here prevents CNO from recovering fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — a consideration for defendants deciding whether to file counterclaims or declaratory judgment actions early to force merits proceedings.
Patent v CNO — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control systems with intelligent call routing, and methods for matching entities in an auction-based framework — technology broadly applicable to contact centre and insurance call routing infrastructure.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these five patents against CNO Financial Group in any subsequent federal action. CNO received a complete exit with no liability finding and no obligation to pay Patent Armory’s costs, as each party agreed to bear its own fees.
No. Because the case was dismissed before CNO filed any answer or dispositive motion, no court made any ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The five patents remain in full force and can be asserted against other defendants. The dismissal creates no estoppel or invalidity record that third parties could rely upon.
The public record does not reveal the reason for the with-prejudice election. Possible explanations include a confidential licensing settlement in which CNO required a with-prejudice dismissal as a condition, or a strategic decision by Patent Armory after assessing litigation economics. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with either scenario. Without prejudice dismissal would have preserved the right to refile, which the with-prejudice designation intentionally surrenders.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00681, before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The case was filed on June 10, 2024 and closed on March 24, 2025 — a duration of 287 days — without any answer, claim construction hearing, or merits ruling on the record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.