Patent Armory v. Del Taco: Five-Patent Call Routing Suit Dropped After 111 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against Del Taco Restaurants Inc. in Delaware. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice just 111 days after filing — before Del Taco filed any responsive pleading.
Five-Patent Telephony Assertion Against Del Taco Ends at the Gate
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Del Taco Restaurants Inc. on December 4, 2024 in the Delaware District Court before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — spanning intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching methods, technologies broadly applicable to customer-facing call and digital routing infrastructure.
On March 25, 2025, Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating the action without prejudice. Because Del Taco had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right, requiring no court order. The without-prejudice designation means Patent Armory retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Del Taco in the future.
The 111-day lifespan — from filing to dismissal before any substantive defendant engagement — is consistent with early-stage settlement discussions, licensing negotiations, or a strategic reassessment of the assertion. The public record does not disclose whether any agreement was reached between the parties. The absence of any defendant counsel of record further suggests Del Taco may have engaged informally or that the matter resolved through direct communication rather than formal litigation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 111 days
111 days — resolved well before typical district court trial timelines of 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what this resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court approval
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Patent Armory exercised this right on March 25, 2025. Because Del Taco had filed no responsive pleading, the dismissal was self-executing upon filing of the notice.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingThe public record specifies ‘without prejudice’ — refiling remains possible
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims. Patent Armory expressly stated the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning it may refile the same five-patent infringement action against Del Taco in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This is legally distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling permanently. The public record here is clear: without prejudice was expressly stated.
Refiling remains available to plaintiffDel Taco exits without a merits ruling — but exposure persists
Del Taco avoided any merits adjudication and incurred no recorded cost or fee award. No defendant counsel of record appears in the public docket, suggesting minimal or no formal litigation expenditure. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Del Taco cannot treat this as a final resolution. The five asserted patents remain in force, and the risk of reassertion — whether in Delaware or another venue — persists.
No merits ruling; future risk remainsRestaurant-sector call routing technology remains a live assertion target
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of patent assertion entities targeting customer-facing communication infrastructure in the restaurant and hospitality sector. The five patents at issue cover technology — intelligent call routing, telephony control, auction-based entity matching — that may be embedded in third-party vendor systems used by restaurant chains. Companies relying on such infrastructure should assess whether their vendor agreements include IP indemnification provisions.
Hospitality sector IP risk — monitor reassertionFull 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 | Del Taco Restaurants Inc. | Company | Del Taco Restaurants Inc. — U.S. quick-service restaurant chain operating customer-facing communication systemsSearch 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 ↗ |
| 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) and expressly states the action is dismissed without prejudice, with the procedural predicate — that Del Taco had not answered or moved for summary judgment — confirmed on the face of the filing. No court order was required and none was entered. The without-prejudice designation carries material legal weight: it preserves Patent Armory’s right to reassert all five patents against Del Taco. No findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope were made, leaving the substantive merits entirely unresolved.
US9456086B1 and Four Related Patents — Intelligent Call Routing & Telephony Control
The five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — collectively cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control platforms, and auction-based entity matching methods. The portfolio spans application dates from the early 2000s through the mid-2010s, reflecting a multi-generational family of claims built around routing logic for inbound telephone and digital communications. The technologies are foundational to any system that dynamically directs customer inquiries to agents, locations, or automated handlers.
For the restaurant and quick-service sector, these patents are strategically significant because call routing and customer communication systems are ubiquitous — often procured from specialist vendors and deeply embedded in operations. Any restaurant chain operating a centralised customer contact system, IVR platform, or digital inquiry routing layer is a potential target. The portfolio’s breadth across multiple patent numbers and application generations suggests it was assembled for assertion, and the Delaware filing is consistent with a campaign-style enforcement strategy targeting well-known consumer brands.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and Patent Armory’s portfolio?
Any restaurant operator, QSR chain, or hospitality company deploying intelligent call routing, IVR systems, or digital communication matching technology should treat this portfolio as a live FTO concern. The without-prejudice dismissal against Del Taco means Patent Armory retains all assertion rights. Product and engineering teams deploying or procuring telephony routing infrastructure — particularly systems that dynamically match callers to handlers or locations — should prioritise a claim-scope review of all five patents before the next procurement or system upgrade cycle.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map patent claims against deployed system architectures at scale. For this portfolio, Eureka can identify which claim elements of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, and the three related patents read on specific routing logic configurations, flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope, and surface prior art that could support a validity challenge — giving in-house teams the intelligence needed to negotiate vendor indemnification or assess IPR petition viability.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Telephony & Call Routing Patent Assertions in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent assertion cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and communication infrastructure patents filed in Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the restaurant and telephony IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal rarely signals the end of a dispute — it frequently marks a pivot in strategy.
Pre-answer dismissals are a common PAE pressure tactic — not a clean exit
Patent assertion entities routinely file, then dismiss without prejudice when defendants show resistance or when licensing terms are not met quickly. The 111-day window here — before any defendant filing — suggests the case may have served its purpose as leverage. Del Taco and similarly positioned restaurant chains should treat this as a warning signal, not a resolved threat.
Vendor IP indemnification clauses are the first line of defence for restaurant operators
The asserted patents cover communication routing technology that restaurant chains typically procure from third-party vendors. In-house counsel should audit vendor contracts for IP indemnification scope — particularly whether call routing, IVR, and digital matching systems deployed by vendors are covered. A gap here leaves the restaurant operator holding direct infringement exposure.
Patent v Del — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. filed a five-patent infringement action against Del Taco Restaurants Inc. in Delaware District Court on December 4, 2024. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 25, 2025, after 111 days, before Del Taco filed any answer or responsive motion. No merits ruling was issued.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control platforms, and auction-based entity matching methods — technologies applicable to customer-facing call and digital routing infrastructure.
A dismissal without prejudice means the case was ended without any finding on the merits and Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same claims against Del Taco in the future. This is legally distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar refiling. The public record in this case expressly states ‘without prejudice.’
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without any court order — before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Del Taco filed no responsive pleading, Patent Armory was entitled to file the dismissal notice unilaterally. The dismissal took effect immediately upon filing.
Patent Armory, Inc. is a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of patents in the telephony and communication routing space. Its asserted patents cover intelligent call routing systems, telephony control platforms, and auction-based entity matching methods. The portfolio spans multiple generations of applications, consistent with a structured assertion programme targeting companies deploying customer communication infrastructure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.