Patent Armory v. Expedia: 5-Patent Call Routing Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five US patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching against travel giant Expedia, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the entire action with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — permanently extinguishing the claims — just 195 days after filing.
Five-patent telephony IP campaign ends early against Expedia
On 15 August 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Expedia, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00597), presided over by Chief Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted five US patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and methods for matching entities in an auction framework.
The action came to an end on 26 February 2024 when Patent Armory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Expedia had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss unilaterally without court approval. The with-prejudice designation is significant: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Patent Armory from reasserting these five patents against Expedia in any future action.
The 195-day resolution — before Expedia even filed an answer — suggests the dispute was resolved or abandoned well before the litigation reached any substantive stage. No cost or fee award was made; each party bears its own expenses. The absence of any defendant filings in the public record means the precise commercial or legal driver behind the dismissal remains undisclosed, though patterns of this kind are consistent with a negotiated resolution, a licensing arrangement, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff.
Filing to resolution in 195 days
Case resolved in 195 days — well under the median for multi-patent district court actions
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Expedia had done neither, so Patent Armory could act unilaterally. The dismissal took effect immediately upon filing — no judicial approval was required, and no substantive merits ruling was ever issued.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court order neededWith prejudice: a permanent bar on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. Patent Armory has permanently surrendered its right to assert these five patents against Expedia. This is a stronger outcome for Expedia than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would have left the door open to refiling. The plaintiff voluntarily accepted this constraint — a notable concession absent any court compulsion.
Permanent — no refiling against ExpediaEach party bears own costs — no fee-shifting
The dismissal order specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Under US patent litigation norms, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case,’ which was never reached here. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is the default under FRCP 54(d) and is consistent with an early, pre-answer resolution where neither party sought to litigate fees.
No § 285 award — default cost rule appliesFive-patent assertion by a dedicated patent holding entity
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five patents spanning multiple application numbers and filing generations, covering intelligent routing (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US10237420B1), telephony control (US7269253B1), and auction-based entity matching (US7023979B1). The breadth of the portfolio and the plaintiff’s profile as a patent assertion entity — represented solely by Rabicoff Law LLC — is consistent with a licensing-focused enforcement campaign rather than a product-based dispute.
PAE assertion — licensing strategy likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and 4 further telephony routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Expedia, Inc. | Company | Expedia, Inc. — global online travel and booking platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly designates the dismissal as ‘with prejudice,’ a choice the plaintiff was not required to make under the rule. The with-prejudice election converts what would otherwise be a procedurally neutral exit into a permanent waiver of Patent Armory’s claims against Expedia on these five patents. The mutual cost-bearing clause forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion, providing Expedia with clean finality on both liability and costs.
US9456086B1 and 4 further patents — intelligent call routing & telephony systems
The five asserted patents span two distinct but related technical domains. US9456086B1, US10491748B1, and US10237420B1 cover intelligent communication routing systems — technology that dynamically directs inbound calls or digital communications based on contextual, behavioural, or auction-based criteria. US7269253B1 addresses telephony control architecture with intelligent routing logic, while US7023979B1 covers auction-based methods for matching entities — a mechanism broadly applicable to online marketplace and booking environments. The filing dates across the corrected application numbers (ranging from US10/385389 to US15/856729) suggest a multi-generation family built over more than a decade.
For a platform like Expedia, which routes customer inquiries across call centres, manages supplier-advertiser relationships through auction-like bidding mechanisms, and operates large-scale telephony infrastructure for booking support, the claimed technology sits close to core operational systems. The multi-patent assertion strategy — common among PAEs targeting platform companies — increases settlement pressure by raising the cost and complexity of a successful invalidity defence. Other travel platforms, online marketplaces, and contact-centre operators using similar routing or matching architectures face analogous exposure from this portfolio.
Should your platform run an FTO against these five routing patents?
Any company operating an intelligent call routing system, auction-based lead distribution mechanism, or telephony control layer for customer service should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. The patents span multiple generations and application families, meaning design-arounds that avoid one claim set may still be caught by another. Travel platforms, insurance comparison sites, financial services contact centres, and online marketplaces are particularly exposed given the breadth of the ‘entity matching in an auction’ framing in US7023979B1.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against the independent claims of all five asserted patents, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag any continuation or continuation-in-part applications still pending in this family. Setting a claim monitoring alert on these patent numbers ensures your team is notified immediately if new claims issue or if the assignee files further suits — giving you the lead time to respond strategically rather than reactively.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar telephony routing and PAE patent cases in WDTX 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 travel-tech IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice against a major platform raises pointed questions about PAE enforcement risk in the call routing space.
WDTX remains a PAE-friendly venue — even when cases resolve early
Chief Judge Albright’s Western District of Texas docket continues to attract patent assertion entities. Even a 195-day case that never reached an answer phase ties up in-house legal resources and triggers defensive analysis. Companies operating communication routing or matching systems should monitor WDTX filings proactively, not reactively.
With-prejudice dismissals can signal a concluded licensing negotiation
When a PAE voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, and each side bears its own costs, this pattern is consistent with — though does not confirm — a licensing agreement having been reached. IP teams should treat such outcomes as data points when assessing whether similar patents in the same portfolio remain live enforcement risks against their own products.
Patent v Expedia — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 26 February 2024, expressly designating the dismissal as with prejudice. This permanently bars Patent Armory from asserting the same five patents against Expedia in any future action.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US10237420B1 (intelligent communication routing systems), US7269253B1 (telephony control with intelligent call routing), and US7023979B1 (method and system for matching entities in an auction). The products at issue included intelligent communication routing, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control systems.
The case resolved in 195 days, before Expedia filed any answer or dispositive motion. This pre-answer dismissal pattern is consistent with — though does not confirm — a negotiated resolution, licensing agreement, or strategic withdrawal by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose the specific commercial reason for the early dismissal.
Patent Armory was represented by attorney Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. No defendant counsel is recorded in the available case data, consistent with the case resolving before Expedia formally appeared on the docket.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action unilaterally — without court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective immediately upon filing. If, as here, the plaintiff designates it ‘with prejudice,’ the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing the asserted claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.