Patent Armory v. Goodyear Tire: Joint Dismissal With Prejudice in 72 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in the Eastern District of Texas asserting two patents covering auction-matching systems and intelligent telephony call routing. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice just 72 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
Dual-patent NPE action against Goodyear ends in swift bilateral closure
Patent Armory, Inc., a non-practising entity represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, filed suit against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company on September 23, 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted infringement of two patents: US9456086B1, directed to a method and system for matching entities in an auction environment, and US7023979B1, covering a telephony control system with intelligent call routing capabilities.
The case closed on December 4, 2025, when both parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, formally dismissing the case with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes — Patent Armory is legally barred from re-asserting either patent against Goodyear in a future action based on the same claims.
A resolution in 72 days — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings — suggests the parties reached an understanding, whether through license, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement, although the public record is silent on specific terms. The mutual cost-bearing clause is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigation victory by either side. The speed of closure may also reflect Goodyear’s retention of Jones Day, a firm with substantial NPE defense experience.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 72 days
72 days — well below the median E.D. Texas patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any refiling of these claims
A joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), constitutes a final termination on the merits. Because both parties signed, no court approval was strictly required, but Judge Gilstrap formally accepted and acknowledged the stipulation. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means Patent Armory cannot reassert US9456086B1 or US7023979B1 against Goodyear in any future action on the same operative facts.
Rule 41(a) joint stipulationPatent Armory loses future enforcement rights against Goodyear
For Patent Armory, the with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future infringement claim against Goodyear under these two patents. This is a meaningful concession from an NPE whose litigation model depends on preserving optionality. The public record does not disclose whether a license fee or covenant was obtained in exchange — a likely scenario given the plaintiff’s willingness to accept a prejudicial closure so early in proceedings.
Enforcement rights extinguished vs. GoodyearGoodyear achieves litigation certainty at minimal disclosed cost
Goodyear secured dismissal with prejudice — the most commercially durable outcome short of a full invalidity ruling — without proceeding to claim construction or trial. Each party bearing its own costs is a standard hallmark of a negotiated exit. Goodyear is now shielded from these specific patent claims permanently, and no adverse merits finding was entered. The outcome suggests Goodyear’s Jones Day counsel executed a containment strategy effectively.
Permanent shield from these claimsAuction-matching and call-routing patents remain active threat to others
While Goodyear is protected, the dismissal with prejudice applies only between these two parties. US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 remain in Patent Armory’s portfolio and can be asserted against any other entity. Companies operating auction platforms, dynamic pricing systems, or intelligent telephony routing infrastructure should treat this case as a signal that Patent Armory is actively enforcing these assets and resolving cases quickly — potentially indicating a licensing campaign.
Broader licensing campaign riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Non-practising entity — holder of US9456086B1 and US7023979B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company | Company | Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company — global tire and rubber products manufacturerSearch 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 | Keith Bryan Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Goodyear Tire & Rubber CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing Goodyear Tire & Rubber CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ accepted and acknowledged by Judge Gilstrap — carries full res judicata effect. The order’s explicit instruction that ‘all pending requests for relief not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT’ confirms no partial rulings survive. The mutual cost-bearing clause is notable: it suggests neither party achieved a clear litigation advantage, consistent with a commercially negotiated resolution whose financial terms remain undisclosed in the public record.
US9456086B1 & US7023979B1 — Auction matching and intelligent call routing
US9456086B1 (App. No. 12/719827) claims a method and system for matching entities within an auction environment — technology that potentially implicates dynamic pricing engines, programmatic bidding, and marketplace-matching platforms. US7023979B1 (App. No. 10/385389) covers a telephony control system with intelligent call routing, a domain that predates modern VoIP but whose claim language may still read on contemporary IVR, ACD, and cloud contact-centre architectures given its early filing priority.
Both patents represent a cross-sector assertion strategy: pairing a data/marketplace patent with a telecommunications patent broadens the universe of potential defendants considerably. The enforcement of these assets against Goodyear — a tire manufacturer with digital retail and customer service infrastructure — suggests Patent Armory is targeting companies with ambient exposure to these technologies rather than pure-play tech firms. This pattern is consistent with a broad licensing campaign and raises the commercial stakes for any company operating similar digital systems.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and US7023979B1?
If your organisation operates an auction-based marketplace, dynamic pricing module, real-time bidding platform, or any intelligent call-routing infrastructure — including cloud contact centres, IVR systems, or ACD deployments — these two patents warrant a freedom-to-operate assessment. The Goodyear case confirms Patent Armory is actively asserting both assets, and the rapid resolution suggests a licensing model that targets defendants across industries, not just direct technology competitors.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 against your product architecture, surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and benchmark Patent Armory’s enforcement history across its full portfolio. An early FTO reduces the cost and disruption of reactive litigation and supports informed licensing negotiations if Patent Armory targets your sector next.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE patent cases in E.D. Texas involving auction and telephony IP
Explore comparable NPE-driven infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas asserting auction-matching and telephony call-routing patents against non-technology-sector defendants.
What this case signals for the NPE enforcement and telephony IP landscape
A 72-day lifecycle and mutual cost-bearing clause are consistent hallmarks of a pre-trial licensing resolution in an NPE campaign.
Speed of closure signals a structured NPE licensing campaign
Cases resolved within 72 days in E.D. Texas — before substantive motion practice — typically reflect a licensing negotiation that was already near completion at filing, or one that accelerated once defense counsel engaged. Patent Armory’s use of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm known for high-volume NPE filings, reinforces this read. Companies in adjacent sectors should assess exposure proactively rather than wait for a complaint.
With-prejudice closure protects Goodyear but not the broader market
The dismissal with prejudice creates a durable litigation bar only as between Patent Armory and Goodyear. US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 are unimpaired as enforcement tools against any other defendant. Entities operating auction-based e-commerce platforms or call-routing infrastructure — including automotive retail, insurance, and logistics firms — remain exposed and should monitor Patent Armory’s docket activity.
Patent v Goodyear — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 2:25-cv-00973 is a final termination on the merits. Patent Armory, Inc. is permanently barred from re-asserting US9456086B1 or US7023979B1 against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company based on the same claims. However, the dismissal does not affect Patent Armory’s ability to assert these patents against any other defendant.
Patent Armory asserted two patents: US9456086B1 (Application No. 12/719827), covering a method and system for matching entities in an auction environment, and US7023979B1 (Application No. 10/385389), covering a telephony control system with intelligent call routing. Both patents remain enforceable against third parties following the dismissal.
The 72-day resolution — before any claim construction or substantive motion practice — is consistent with a pre-trial licensing negotiation or commercial settlement. The joint stipulation and mutual cost-bearing clause suggest both parties reached a private agreement. The specific financial terms are not disclosed in the public record. This speed is also consistent with Rabicoff Law LLC’s high-volume NPE filing model.
Patent Armory was represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm associated with high-volume NPE patent assertion. Goodyear was represented by Keith Bryan Davis of Jones Day, a global firm with a well-established NPE defense practice. Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas presided, consistent with E.D. Texas’s high patent caseload.
No. The dismissal with prejudice creates a litigation bar only between Patent Armory and Goodyear. US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 remain valid and enforceable against any other entity. Companies operating auction platforms, dynamic pricing systems, programmatic bidding infrastructure, or intelligent call-routing systems should assess their exposure independently and consider a freedom-to-operate analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.