Patent Armory v. Continuum Global Solutions: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed Without Prejudice
Patent Armory Inc asserted five patents spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against Continuum Global Solutions LLC in the Northern District of Texas. The case resolved in just 89 days via plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
A five-patent telephony assertion dropped before defendant could respond
Patent Armory Inc filed suit on December 27, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:24-cv-03258), asserting five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — against Continuum Global Solutions LLC, a provider of outsourced contact centre and customer engagement services. The asserted patents cover intelligent communication routing, telephony control with call routing logic, and method-and-system claims for matching entities via an auction mechanism.
On March 26, 2025 — just 89 days after filing — Patent Armory filed a unilateral voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), closing the action without prejudice. Because Continuum had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, Patent Armory was entitled to dismiss as of right without requiring court approval or defendant consent. No merits ruling, claim construction order, or fee award was entered.
The speed of resolution and the without-prejudice designation are commercially significant: Patent Armory retains the ability to re-file the same claims against Continuum or to assert the same patents against other defendants in the contact centre and intelligent routing sector. The public record does not disclose whether the parties reached a licensing arrangement, a tolling agreement, or simply chose not to proceed — leaving the underlying commercial rationale a matter of inference. Practitioners should note that a second dismissal of the same claims against the same defendant would typically operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 89 days
89 days — resolved before defendant’s first responsive pleading
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s dismissal as of right
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without court order at any point before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Patent Armory exercised this right on March 26, 2025. The dismissal is self-executing — no judicial approval was required, and no merits determination was made on any of the five asserted patents.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice — but what does the public record actually say?
The dismissal notice expressly states ‘without prejudice’, meaning Patent Armory has not waived its right to re-file claims on the same five patents against Continuum or other parties. However, practitioners should note the ‘two-dismissal rule’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(B): a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim against the same defendant would convert to a dismissal with prejudice. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement, licence, or tolling agreement exists alongside this filing.
Re-filing risk remains openContinuum exits without admission — but exposure persists
Continuum Global Solutions LLC avoided any merits adjudication and obtained no fee award or declaratory judgment of non-infringement. While the dismissal ends this specific action, the without-prejudice status means Continuum cannot treat the matter as fully resolved. If Continuum has not secured a licence or freedom-to-operate clearance for the five asserted patents, it remains exposed to re-assertion. McDermott Will & Emery’s representation suggests Continuum treated this as a substantive IP risk worth resourcing.
No licence confirmed on public recordFive active patents over contact centre routing remain live threats
The five asserted patents span core technologies in intelligent call routing, telephony control logic, and auction-based entity matching — capabilities embedded in virtually all modern contact centre platforms. Patent Armory’s withdrawal without prejudice, and without any confirmed licence, suggests these patents may be deployed in further assertions across the sector. Operators and vendors of ACD, IVR, and AI-driven routing systems should treat this docket as a signal to assess exposure to the asserted patent family.
Routing platform operators at riskFull 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 | Continuum Global Solutions LLC | Company | Continuum Global Solutions LLC — outsourced contact centre and customer engagement services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin C. Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DNL Zito | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin James Meek. | Attorney | Counsel for Continuum Global Solutions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | Law Firm | Representing Continuum Global Solutions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David C. Godbey | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice cites Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states the action is dismissed ‘without prejudice’, confirming no merits determination was reached on any of the five asserted patents. The phrasing is consistent with a unilateral plaintiff election rather than a negotiated consent order, though the absence of any public settlement filing means the commercial terms — if any — remain undisclosed. For Continuum, the without-prejudice designation provides no preclusive protection against re-assertion of the same patent claims.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
The five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — span nearly two decades of prosecution history, with application dates ranging from the early 2000s through the mid-2010s. They collectively protect methods and systems for intelligent communication routing, telephony control logic, and auction-based entity matching, technologies that underpin automatic call distribution, skills-based routing, and dynamic IVR systems deployed across the modern contact centre industry.
The breadth of the asserted portfolio — covering both system and method claims across routing, control, and matching functions — creates material exposure for platform vendors, BPO operators, and CCaaS providers whose products perform any form of dynamic agent selection, call prioritisation, or real-time entity matching. With Patent Armory’s dismissal leaving all five patents unencumbered by any court finding of invalidity or non-infringement, the portfolio remains fully deployable against the wider sector. Companies developing or licensing contact centre routing technology should treat these patents as active enforcement risks.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and related routing patents?
Any organisation building, deploying, or licensing intelligent call routing, dynamic agent matching, or telephony control systems should consider an FTO analysis against this five-patent family. The patents cover foundational routing and matching logic that appears in ACD platforms, CCaaS products, and BPO-operated telephony infrastructure. The case’s without-prejudice dismissal means no claim has been invalidated — all five remain grant-valid and fully enforceable against new targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical functions against the independent claims of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1, identify design-around opportunities, and flag prior art candidates that could support an IPR petition. R&D teams integrating routing or entity-matching logic into new products should run this analysis before product launch or the next licensing demand arrives.
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 N.D. Texas
Cases involving intelligent call routing and telephony control patents litigated in the Northern District of Texas, including PAE assertion patterns against contact centre operators.
What this case signals for the contact centre and telephony IP landscape
Five call routing patents were asserted and withdrawn in under 90 days — a pattern consistent with licensing-focused assertion strategies.
Early withdrawal before answer is a hallmark of licensing-driven PAE strategy
Patent Armory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before Continuum answered is consistent with a patent assertion entity seeking a licensing resolution rather than litigation on the merits. Companies in the contact centre, IVR, and intelligent routing space should anticipate similar demand letters and assess whether pre-litigation licensing offers represent efficient risk management versus full defence.
The five-patent portfolio spans foundational routing claims worth mapping
US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 collectively cover intelligent routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. Any vendor or operator whose platform performs dynamic agent or skills-based routing, call auction logic, or intelligent IVR should conduct a claim-level FTO review against this portfolio before receiving a demand.
Patent v Continuum — key questions answered
Patent Armory Inc filed a patent infringement action against Continuum Global Solutions LLC in the Northern District of Texas on December 27, 2024, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony systems. On March 26, 2025, Patent Armory voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Continuum had answered. No merits ruling was entered.
Patent Armory asserted US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with call routing logic, and auction-based methods for matching entities — technologies relevant to contact centre and CCaaS platforms.
A dismissal without prejudice means Patent Armory did not waive its right to re-file the same patent claims against Continuum in a future action. Continuum obtained no declaratory judgment of non-infringement and no ruling that the patents are invalid. The company remains exposed to re-assertion unless it has secured a licence or other agreement not reflected in the public record.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Patent Armory may re-file. However, under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ in Rule 41(a)(1)(B), if Patent Armory files and then voluntarily dismisses the same claims against Continuum a second time, that second dismissal would operate as an adjudication on the merits, permanently barring re-assertion of those claims.
The five asserted patents span foundational intelligent routing, telephony control, and entity-matching logic used across ACD, IVR, and CCaaS systems. None of the patents were invalidated in this case. Vendors and operators whose products perform dynamic agent selection, skills-based routing, or real-time call matching should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio, as Patent Armory retains full enforcement rights.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.