Patent Armory v. Esler Companies: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Esler Companies, LLC in the Delaware District Court asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after 223 days, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
Five-patent call routing dispute ends in mutual walk-away
Patent Armory, Inc. filed this infringement action on January 8, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — against Esler Companies, LLC, targeting products and systems relating to intelligent communication routing, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and method-and-system frameworks for matching entities in an auction context.
The case closed on August 19, 2025 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law: Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these specific claims against Esler Companies on the same patents. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting neither side extracted a clear financial concession from the other in the public record.
At 223 days, the resolution is consistent with an agreement reached before claim construction or any substantive motion practice — though the public record does not confirm whether a confidential licence or settlement payment accompanied the stipulation. The absence of fee-shifting is notable given the Patent Act’s ‘exceptional case’ standard under 35 U.S.C. § 285; its omission here suggests neither party sought or obtained such a designation. The terms of any underlying business resolution remain undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 223 days
223 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with early settlement before claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal, permanent bar on refiling
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a written stipulation signed by all parties. It operates as a final judgment on the merits, meaning Patent Armory cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Esler Companies on these five patents in any U.S. court. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, there is no second opportunity to litigate these specific claims.
Permanent bar — no refilingPatent Armory exits permanently — no public recovery confirmed
Dismissal with prejudice initiated by the plaintiff typically suggests either a negotiated resolution was reached on confidential terms, or that continuing litigation was not commercially viable. Because each party bears its own costs, no publicly confirmed monetary recovery exists. Patent Armory retains the five asserted patents and may assert them against other defendants not covered by this stipulation.
Patents survive for third-party useEsler Companies obtains permanent release from these claims
Esler Companies secured a with-prejudice dismissal, which functions as a complete and permanent shield against re-litigation of these infringement claims by Patent Armory on the five asserted patents. No costs or fees were shifted to Esler, meaning the defence costs were self-funded. Whether any licence, design-around, or payment formed part of a confidential agreement is not reflected in the public record.
Full release — no fee awardFive call routing patents remain active enforcement tools against others
The with-prejudice dismissal only binds Patent Armory vis-à-vis Esler Companies. All five patents — spanning intelligent routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — remain in force and can be asserted against other parties in the telecommunications and contact-centre software sector. Companies operating similar call routing or lead-distribution platforms should monitor this portfolio for follow-on assertions.
Portfolio remains live for enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of five intelligent call routing and entity-matching patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Esler Companies, LLC | Company | Esler Companies, LLC — defendant in intelligent call routing infringement action, DelawareSearch 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 | Diane J. Zelmer | Attorney | Counsel for Esler Companies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Megan Elizabeth Dellinger | Attorney | Counsel for Esler Companies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Esler Companies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring consent of all parties and producing a dismissal that ‘operates as an adjudication on the merits’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). The mutual cost-bearing clause is standard in negotiated exits but notable for its symmetry: it forecloses any inference that one side capitulated financially. The public record is silent on whether a licence or royalty payment was exchanged, and the absence of any docketed settlement agreement leaves that question open.
US9456086, US10491748 & three further patents — intelligent call routing portfolio
The five asserted patents cover technologies in two overlapping domains: intelligent call routing and telephony control (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1) and auction-based entity matching applicable to communication routing (US10237420B1). The portfolio spans application dates ranging from the early 2000s through the mid-2010s, suggesting a layered prosecution strategy designed to extend coverage across successive generations of routing and contact-centre technology.
For the telecommunications, contact-centre software, and lead-generation sectors, this portfolio presents meaningful exposure. Intelligent call routing — directing inbound calls or leads to the optimal agent or buyer via algorithmic or auction-based logic — is foundational to modern CCaaS platforms, insurance aggregators, and home-services lead marketplaces. The breadth of the portfolio means a single product offering may implicate multiple patent families simultaneously, complicating design-around strategies and FTO clearance timelines.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086, US10491748, and the related call routing portfolio?
Any company building or deploying intelligent call routing, telephony control APIs, or auction-based lead distribution platforms should treat this five-patent portfolio as a live FTO risk. The with-prejudice dismissal against Esler Companies confirms that Patent Armory is actively enforcing these patents in Delaware — and the resolution leaves all five patents fully intact for assertion against other parties in the contact-centre, CCaaS, and lead-gen sectors.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each asserted claim against your product’s call routing logic, entity-matching algorithms, and telephony control flows — identifying potential overlap and prosecution history estoppel that could support a non-infringement position. Eureka also surfaces the full citation and litigation history of each patent family, enabling your team to assess invalidity vectors before any demand letter escalates to formal litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: intelligent call routing and telephony IP in Delaware
Cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control patents, and PAE enforcement actions in Delaware District Court with comparable multi-patent assertion strategies.
What this case signals for the call routing and telephony IP landscape
A five-patent assertion that resolves in under eight months with no public fee award suggests calculated portfolio enforcement — and a live risk for similar operators.
Early exit pattern is consistent with PAE licensing pressure tactics
Patent assertion entities frequently file multi-patent complaints to maximise settlement leverage before claim construction. A 223-day lifecycle ending in mutual walk-away — with no disclosed payment — is consistent with a confidential licence being the commercial resolution. Companies in call routing and lead generation should treat receipt of a complaint from this plaintiff as an opening licensing demand, not a prelude to trial.
No fee-shifting means no ‘exceptional case’ finding — litigation posture was credible
The absence of a § 285 fee award indicates Esler either did not seek it, or that Patent Armory’s position was not deemed objectively unreasonable. This matters for future defendants: it suggests the asserted patents and infringement theories were at least facially plausible, raising the cost and risk of a purely defensive strategy for the next target in this portfolio.
Patent v Esler — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on August 19, 2025, 223 days after filing. Patent Armory had asserted five call routing and entity-matching patents against Esler Companies in Delaware. Each party bore its own costs; no public monetary award was recorded.
Patent Armory asserted US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and methods for matching entities in an auction — spanning application dates from the early 2000s through the mid-2010s.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. For Esler Companies, it means Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these infringement claims on the same patents in any U.S. court. It is the most complete form of release a defendant can obtain without a full trial.
The public docket does not disclose any payment, licence, or royalty agreement. The stipulation states only that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Whether a confidential business resolution accompanied the dismissal is not reflected in publicly available court records.
Yes. A with-prejudice dismissal only binds the parties to the stipulation — Patent Armory and Esler Companies. All five patents (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, US10237420B1) remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants in the call routing, CCaaS, and lead-generation sectors. Companies in those spaces should conduct FTO analysis against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.