Patent Armory v. Deli Management: 5-Patent Call Routing Suit Dismissed in 19 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Deli Management, Inc. asserting five patents covering intelligent communication routing and telephony control systems. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal just 19 days after filing, with all plaintiff claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
19-day exit: five call routing patents dropped with prejudice in E.D. Texas
Patent Armory, Inc. filed Case No. 2:24-cv-00025 in the Eastern District of Texas on 19 January 2024 before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of five US patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — against Deli Management, Inc. The patents collectively cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with smart call routing, and method and system frameworks for entity matching in auction-style contexts. Plaintiff was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC; Defendant retained Fish & Richardson LLP.
The case ended on 7 February 2024 — just 19 days after filing — when the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation, dismissing all of Patent Armory’s claims with prejudice and all of Deli Management’s counterclaims without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff claims extinguishes Patent Armory’s right to refile these specific infringement claims against Deli Management on these patents.
A resolution in 19 days — before any substantive motion practice — strongly suggests the parties reached a private agreement, potentially including a licence or covenant not to sue, almost immediately after suit was filed. The public record is silent on the terms of any such arrangement. The asymmetric prejudice structure (plaintiff claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant counterclaims without prejudice) is a recognised settlement signal: it protects Patent Armory from counterclaims being refiled independently while closing off future assertion of the same patents against this defendant.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 19 days
Case resolved in 19 days — exceptionally fast for a multi-patent infringement action
Joint stipulation dismisses plaintiff claims with prejudice, counterclaims without
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation of dismissal
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a signed stipulation. Because both parties signed, no judicial approval was required — Judge Gilstrap’s order simply acknowledges and accepts the stipulation. This is the cleanest and fastest exit route in US federal civil litigation, and its use here is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached very shortly after the complaint was filed.
No court order requiredSplit prejudice: plaintiff claims out permanently, counterclaims left open
Plaintiff Patent Armory’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — they are permanently barred from asserting the same five patents against Deli Management in future litigation. Defendant Deli Management’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could theoretically be refiled. In practice, this asymmetric structure typically reflects a negotiated compromise: the plaintiff secures peace from counterclaims pursuing invalidity while the defendant receives a firm end to the infringement exposure.
Permanent bar on plaintiff claimsEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting ordered
The court ordered that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In a case closed this quickly, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) is rarely at issue and was not pursued here. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is standard for jointly stipulated dismissals and neither confirms nor denies whether any financial consideration passed between the parties privately.
No § 285 fee awardFive-patent assertion across routing, matching, and telephony control
Patent Armory asserted five patents spanning multiple application numbers and filing generations — from US7023979B1 (filed 2003) through to US10491748B1 (filed 2017). This breadth of assertion across an evolving patent family in the communication routing space suggests a deliberate licensing strategy rather than a product-protection dispute. Asserting a portfolio rather than a single patent is a common tactic to complicate invalidity defences and increase licensing pressure.
Multi-generation patent portfolioFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four further call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Deli Management, Inc. | Company | Deli Management, Inc. — defendant in telephony patent infringement action, represented by Fish & RichardsonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Deli Management, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order accepts a jointly filed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation without entering any findings on the merits. The dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff claims is final and bars Patent Armory from reasserting these five patents against Deli Management. However, the without-prejudice dismissal of defendant counterclaims means Deli Management’s invalidity or non-infringement positions were never adjudicated and remain theoretically available in future proceedings involving different parties.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent Communication Routing System
The five asserted patents span application filings from 2003 (US10/385389, issuing as US7023979B1) through to 2017 (US15/797070, issuing as US10491748B1), covering a technology arc from early auction-based entity matching systems through to modern intelligent call routing architectures. The core technical domain centres on automated routing decisions for telephony and communication streams — determining how inbound communications are directed to optimal endpoints based on system logic, entity attributes, or auction-style matching. This is foundational infrastructure for contact centres, VoIP platforms, and cloud communications services.
The breadth of this portfolio — five patents across three distinct product categories — is strategically significant. Any company building or operating intelligent routing layers in telephony, contact centre software, or real-time communication platforms sits within the potential assertion perimeter. The inclusion of auction-matching patents (US7023979B1) alongside routing control patents suggests the portfolio may also extend to lead distribution, pay-per-call, and marketplace communication platforms. The multi-filing-generation structure makes prior art challenges more complex, as each continuation or independent application carries its own prosecution history.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
If your product or platform involves intelligent routing of inbound calls, communication queue management, or entity-matched telephony, this five-patent portfolio warrants a formal freedom-to-operate review. The 19-day resolution in this case does not mean the patents are weak — it more likely reflects a rapid licence. Patent Armory’s claims remain live against third parties. Cloud contact centre vendors, VoIP providers, pay-per-call platforms, and UCaaS developers are particularly exposed given the breadth of the asserted claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent claims of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 simultaneously, flagging overlap risk and identifying prior art relevant to validity. Claim monitoring alerts will notify your team if Patent Armory files continuations, divisionals, or new suits on related applications — giving you advance warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE call routing patent cases in E.D. Texas and beyond
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the telephony and call routing IP landscape
A 19-day dismissal with prejudice by a prolific NPE signals active monetisation — not a one-off filing.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for NPE call routing assertions
Filing before Chief Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas is a deliberate strategic choice. E.D. Texas has historically favoured plaintiffs in pre-trial procedure and is known for efficient docketing. Companies operating communication infrastructure or routing platforms should monitor NPE filings in this district closely — resolution speed here does not reduce the filing risk.
19-day closures suggest pre-suit licensing pressure is effective
Cases resolved this rapidly typically reflect pre-suit or near-immediate post-filing negotiation. For defendants, retaining experienced counsel — here Fish & Richardson — within days of service appears to have accelerated resolution. For potential defendants in similar NPE suits, having a prepared IP response playbook materially reduces both litigation duration and exposure.
Patent v Deli — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction context. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 19 January 2024.
The 19-day resolution is consistent with a negotiated private settlement or licence agreement reached almost immediately after the complaint was filed. The parties filed a joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which requires no court approval and is the standard vehicle for a consensual exit. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. No substantive motion practice occurred before dismissal.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law. Patent Armory is permanently barred from refiling the same infringement claims based on the five asserted patents against Deli Management. However, the patents themselves remain in force and Patent Armory retains the right to assert them against other defendants.
No. The court’s order specifies that Deli Management’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. This means those counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or non-infringement arguments — were not adjudicated and could theoretically be refiled in a different proceeding. The asymmetric prejudice structure is a recognised feature of negotiated NPE settlements.
Patent Armory was represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm known for NPE patent assertion work. Deli Management was represented by Lance Eric Wyatt Jr. of Fish & Richardson LLP, one of the leading patent litigation defence firms in the US. The case was presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.