Patent Armory v. Dickey’s Barbecue: Five Call Routing Patents Dismissed in 126 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 126 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
A five-patent telephony assertion ends early — with the door left open
On October 4, 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action against Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the busiest patent dockets in the country. The complaint asserted five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method and system for matching entities in an auction context.
The case ended on February 7, 2024, when Patent Armory filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and formally dismissed all claims and causes of action without prejudice. Critically, no costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees were awarded to either side — an even split that typically reflects a negotiated early exit rather than a contested ruling on the merits.
The 126-day duration places this case firmly in the category of early-stage resolutions — the dismissal came before any substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings on the public record. Whether the parties reached a licensing agreement, a covenant not to sue, or simply disengaged is not disclosed in the public record. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves Patent Armory’s ability to refile the same claims, suggesting this may not represent a permanent resolution for the asserted portfolio.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 126 days
126 days — resolved well before the E.D. Texas median time to trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows dismissal as of right before defendant answers
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court’s role is purely administrative — it accepts and acknowledges the dismissal rather than adjudicating any claim. No merits ruling was issued here, meaning neither party prevailed on the substance of the infringement allegations.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the claims survive for a potential refiling
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish Patent Armory’s infringement claims — the same five patents could be asserted again in a future action. This is the critical distinction from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling on the same claims. The public record is silent on whether a settlement, licence, or covenant not to sue was exchanged. Companies in Dickey’s position should note that without such a formal release, litigation exposure under these patents persists.
Refiling risk remainsPatent Armory exits without cost exposure but retains enforcement optionality
By invoking Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Dickey’s served an answer, Patent Armory avoided any fee-shifting risk and preserved full enforcement rights. The equal costs allocation means no adverse financial consequence for the plaintiff. This exit strategy is consistent with patent assertion entity practice: test defendant response, negotiate, and if terms are not met, preserve the right to refile or pivot to a different defendant.
Enforcement rights preservedDickey’s avoids a merits ruling but gains no formal patent release
Dickey’s Barbecue secured an end to this specific litigation without incurring a damages award or injunction. However, the absence of a with-prejudice dismissal or documented licence means the five asserted patents remain live threats. Businesses that rely on third-party intelligent call routing, IVR, or customer communication platforms should assess whether their vendors’ technology may continue to be targeted under this portfolio.
No formal release documentedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four related call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. | Company | Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. — U.S. quick-service restaurant chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Collin Amery Rose | Attorney | Counsel for Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry Mark Pogorzelski | Attorney | Counsel for Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | K&L Gates LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | K&L Gates, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms a procedural exit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the least contested form of dismissal, requiring no court approval when filed before an answer is served. The court’s language (‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’) reflects its ministerial role. The equal costs allocation is notable: it forecloses any fee-shifting argument by either side and is consistent with a negotiated or consensual disengagement rather than a unilateral plaintiff retreat. No claim construction, invalidity, or infringement finding was made.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
US9456086B1, application number US12/719827, covers an intelligent communication routing system and method — a class of invention directed at dynamically directing inbound communications based on configurable logic, caller data, or real-time availability signals. The portfolio extends across five patents filed across different application series, suggesting a deliberate prosecution strategy to build layered claim coverage over routing logic, telephony control infrastructure, and entity-matching mechanisms used in auction-style call distribution.
The commercial relevance of this portfolio extends well beyond traditional telecom. Intelligent call routing technology underpins contact centres, IVR platforms, pay-per-call lead generation, and cloud-based CX infrastructure — all high-growth segments. The inclusion of auction-based entity matching (US10491748B1) signals that Patent Armory’s claims are likely calibrated to reach performance marketing and lead routing platforms. Any company operating or licensing such infrastructure in the US market faces non-trivial exposure until these patents are formally licensed or invalidated.
Should your platform conduct an FTO against US9456086B1 and related patents?
If your organisation builds, licenses, or procures intelligent call routing, IVR, contact centre, or pay-per-call lead distribution technology, this five-patent portfolio warrants a targeted freedom-to-operate review. The asserted patents span multiple claim families — meaning a single design-around or prior art argument against one patent does not resolve exposure across the others. Hospitality, retail, and service-industry companies that rely on third-party telephony vendors are particularly exposed if vendor indemnification clauses are narrowly drafted.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables claim-level mapping across all five asserted patents simultaneously, surfacing prior art, identifying design-around pathways, and benchmarking claim scope against the prosecution history. For in-house IP teams, Eureka can also monitor Patent Armory’s broader portfolio for continuation filings and new assertion activity — providing early warning before the next E.D. Texas complaint lands.
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 E.D. Texas
Explore patent assertion cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and IVR patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the call routing and telephony IP landscape
Patent Armory’s rapid exit in E.D. Texas is consistent with a broader pattern of portfolio-level assertion strategies targeting enterprise communication technology.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred forum for telephony PAE assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket continues to attract high-volume patent assertion filings. The 126-day lifecycle here — from filing to Rule 41 dismissal — is consistent with cases where a PAE files, gauges defendant posture, and resolves quickly. Companies deploying call routing or IVR technology should treat E.D. Texas filings as a credible first-step signal, not a nuisance.
Five-patent portfolios covering routing and telephony carry multi-front risk
With five patents spanning intelligent routing, telephony control, and entity matching in auctions, Patent Armory’s portfolio covers functionally distinct claim sets. A single FTO clearance on one patent does not extinguish exposure across the others. Businesses using third-party contact centre or CRM telephony infrastructure should audit vendor indemnification provisions specifically for these patent numbers.
Patent v Dickey’s — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 4, 2023, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony systems. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Patent Armory on February 7, 2024, after 126 days, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1 (intelligent communication routing system and method), US10491748B1 (method and system for matching entities in an auction), US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 (telephony control system with intelligent call routing). The patents collectively cover call routing logic, telephony control infrastructure, and auction-based entity matching.
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff’s claims are terminated for this action but are not extinguished. Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Dickey’s Barbecue or other defendants in a future action. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently bar refiling of the same claims. The public record does not disclose whether a licence or settlement was reached.
The court’s order that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees is consistent with a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal filed before the defendant has served an answer. At this early procedural stage, no fee-shifting basis had been established. The equal costs allocation suggests the parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution or that Dickey’s did not press for fee recovery, which would typically require a separate motion and finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Based on the available public record, Patent Armory, Inc. functions as a patent assertion entity — it is identified solely as a plaintiff asserting infringement across a portfolio of communication technology patents, with no publicly disclosed product or service business. The representation by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm associated with high-volume patent assertion litigation, and the rapid Rule 41 exit are consistent with PAE litigation patterns, though the precise business model is not confirmed in the case record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.