Patent Armory v. Fullstory: Five-Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 76 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Fullstory, Inc. in the District of Delaware asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) in just 76 days — before any substantive court rulings — with all claims against Fullstory dismissed with prejudice and each side bearing its own costs.
Five-patent routing and matching suit resolved by stipulation before any ruling
On January 8, 2025, Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Fullstory, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity-matching methods. The accused products included Fullstory’s intelligent communication routing system and related analytics infrastructure.
The case closed on March 25, 2025, just 76 days after filing, via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims asserted by Patent Armory against Fullstory were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these specific claims against Fullstory on these patents. Fullstory’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Fullstory’s ability to revive those claims in future proceedings if warranted. Each party agreed to bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
A resolution in 76 days — before any claim construction, dispositive motions, or discovery rulings — is notably fast and consistent with an early-stage negotiated resolution. The public record does not disclose the commercial terms, if any, that accompanied the stipulation. The asymmetry between with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and without-prejudice dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims is a pattern that sometimes reflects a confidential licensing arrangement, though the record is silent on this point.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 76 days
76 days — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the Rule 41 terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal ends the case by party agreement
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared and allows the parties to set their own terms. Here, the parties specified dismissal with prejudice for plaintiff’s claims and without prejudice for defendant’s counterclaims. No court order on the merits was issued — the case terminates by operation of the stipulation itself once filed.
No merits rulingWith-prejudice dismissal permanently bars re-assertion against Fullstory
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Patent Armory cannot re-file these same infringement claims based on the five asserted patents against Fullstory in any U.S. court. The patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other defendants, but Fullstory is effectively released from this specific litigation risk permanently.
Claims extinguished vs. FullstoryFullstory’s counterclaims preserved; no fee award granted
Fullstory’s counterclaims — which in patent cases typically include invalidity and non-infringement — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Fullstory retains the theoretical ability to pursue them in a future action. However, the practical utility of reviving counterclaims absent a live plaintiff case is limited. Notably, no attorneys’ fees were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 despite the case resolving at an early stage.
Counterclaims preservedEarly resolution limits public disclosure on patent scope or validity
Because no claim construction or validity ruling was issued, there is no public judicial record narrowing or validating the five asserted patents. This matters for competitors and potential future targets: the patents’ effective scope remains untested. Other companies in the digital analytics and communication-routing sector that received similar demand letters from Patent Armory should note that this resolution provides no precedential guidance on the merits.
Patents remain unlitigatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of 5 patents covering intelligent call routing and entity-matching systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fullstory, Inc. | Company | Fullstory, Inc. — digital experience analytics platform providerSearch 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 | Grayson P. Sundermeir | Attorney | Counsel for Fullstory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Fullstory, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice — is legally precise and commercially significant. Dismissal with prejudice of Patent Armory’s claims carries the force of a final judgment under res judicata, permanently foreclosing re-litigation of these claims against Fullstory. The without-prejudice treatment of Fullstory’s counterclaims preserves optionality without committing either party to further proceedings. The absence of any attorneys’ fees provision beyond each party bearing its own suggests neither party pursued nor achieved an ‘exceptional case’ finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US9456086B1 and four further patents — intelligent routing and entity-matching systems
The five asserted patents cover a cluster of related technologies: intelligent routing of communications (including telephony and digital channels), telephony control systems with dynamic call routing logic, and auction-based systems for matching entities. The portfolio spans multiple application filing dates — from early 2000s filings through mid-2010s continuations — suggesting Patent Armory assembled or developed a layered enforcement portfolio designed to capture technology evolution in routing and matching across different product generations. All five issued as U.S. utility patents with B1 designations, indicating they issued without prior publication.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, this portfolio is relevant to any company operating in digital experience analytics, customer communications platforms, contact-centre-as-a-service (CCaaS), or SaaS products that incorporate intelligent call or session routing. The breadth of the portfolio — five patents across routing and matching — suggests Patent Armory may pursue other defendants in these sectors. The fact that no claim construction ruling was issued means the effective scope of each patent’s claims has not been judicially narrowed, preserving maximum enforcement flexibility for Patent Armory.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any product team building or operating intelligent communication routing, session analytics, or auction-based matching systems should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. Patent Armory secured a with-prejudice dismissal against Fullstory — consistent with a resolved commercial dispute — but the patents remain fully in force and available for assertion against other parties. If your product routes communications dynamically, ranks or matches entities in any bid-like mechanism, or manages telephony sessions, at least two of the five asserted patents warrant a formal FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to run claim-level mapping against US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 simultaneously. Eureka surfaces related family members, identifies prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flags claim language that overlaps with your product specification — giving your legal team a defensible clearance record before any demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: intelligent routing and communication system patents in Delaware
Cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching patents litigated in the District of Delaware follow identifiable patterns worth tracking.
What this case signals for the digital analytics and call-routing IP landscape
Five patents, a 76-day lifespan, and no merits ruling — this resolution pattern carries distinct strategic signals for IP teams monitoring PAE activity.
Early stipulated dismissals with prejudice often signal confidential licensing
When a plaintiff agrees to dismiss its own claims with prejudice this early, it typically suggests the commercial objective — a license or settlement payment — was achieved. Patent Armory retains all five patents for future enforcement campaigns. Companies in adjacent technology areas should assess their exposure before receiving a demand letter rather than after.
No fee award signals the case did not meet the ‘exceptional case’ threshold
The each-party-bears-own-costs term is consistent with an early exit negotiated before substantial fees were incurred, or before either side built a compelling § 285 record. Defendants facing similar PAE suits in Delaware should build an exceptionality record from day one — early motion practice can create leverage even before claim construction.
Patent v Fullstory — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means all of Patent Armory’s infringement claims against Fullstory are permanently extinguished. Patent Armory cannot re-file these same claims based on the five asserted patents against Fullstory in any U.S. court. The dismissal carries the legal effect of a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents collectively cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity-matching methods.
The asymmetric dismissal terms were negotiated by the parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice permanently bars re-assertion. Dismissing defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice preserves Fullstory’s theoretical ability to revive invalidity or other counterclaims in future proceedings, though in practice the absence of a live plaintiff case makes revival unlikely.
No. The stipulation expressly provides that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party sought or obtained an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This outcome is consistent with early-stage resolution before substantial litigation costs were incurred.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Patent Armory from re-asserting these claims against Fullstory specifically. All five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain in force and enforceable against other parties. Companies in the digital analytics, CCaaS, or intelligent routing space should assess their exposure independently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.