Patent Armory v. Grubhub: 5-Patent Call Routing Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 41 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against food-delivery platform Grubhub, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice just 41 days after filing — a timeline that typically signals a swift pre-trial resolution.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 41 days
41 days — well below the median N.D. Illinois patent case duration of 2+ years
With-prejudice dismissal: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties. It is a consensual end to litigation — no judge ruling on the merits. Here, plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the court retains no jurisdiction and Patent Armory cannot refile the same infringement claims against Grubhub on these five patents.
Consensual — no merits rulingPatent Armory’s with-prejudice dismissal bars refiling against Grubhub
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Patent Armory cannot reassert these five patents against Grubhub in future proceedings. The fact that counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice suggests Grubhub reserved the right to pursue invalidity or other defences independently, which may have influenced Patent Armory’s decision to settle swiftly.
Claims extinguished vs. GrubhubGrubhub exits the suit; counterclaims preserved for potential future use
Grubhub, represented by Fish & Richardson, secured dismissal of all infringement claims with prejudice — a strong defensive outcome. Critically, Grubhub’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving optionality to challenge patent validity through IPR, ex parte reexamination, or a separate declaratory judgment action. This asymmetric structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution that favoured the defendant.
Counterclaims preservedSwift dismissal limits precedent but signals portfolio licensing pressure
No claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no damages determination entered the record. The five asserted patents remain valid and potentially enforceable against other parties in the online food-delivery and marketplace communications sector. Companies operating intelligent call routing or auction-matching systems for customer dispatch should note that Patent Armory’s portfolio continues to pose licensing risk.
Portfolio risk remains for the sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Grubhub, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip 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 | Louis E. Fogel | Attorney | Counsel for Grubhub, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. Mcnabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Grubhub, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shaun M. Van Horn | Attorney | Counsel for Grubhub, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Grubhub, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson P.c. | Law Firm | Representing Grubhub, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Andrea R. Wood | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric prejudice structure is analytically significant: plaintiff’s claims are extinguished with prejudice while Grubhub’s counterclaims survive without prejudice. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), no judicial finding on infringement or validity was made. The with-prejudice bar protects Grubhub from re-litigation on these specific patents, but the surviving counterclaims suggest the parties did not reach a clean bilateral release — consistent with a payment-based resolution rather than a pure walk-away.
US9456086, US10491748 & 3 further patents — intelligent call routing & telephony control
The five asserted patents span two overlapping technical domains: intelligent communication routing (US9456086, US10491748, US10237420) and telephony control with entity matching (US7269253, US7023979). The earliest priority application (US10/385389 for US7023979) dates to the early 2000s, suggesting foundational claims in call routing infrastructure. US10491748 and US10237420, with mid-2010s application dates, likely cover more modern implementations relevant to app-based dispatch and marketplace communications.
For a platform like Grubhub — which routes customer calls, dispatch notifications, and driver-restaurant communications — patents covering intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching could plausibly read on core operational infrastructure. The breadth of the portfolio, spanning both legacy telephony and modern digital routing, increases the surface area for infringement assertions. Companies in food delivery, logistics, and on-demand marketplace sectors operating similar communication layers face analogous exposure from this portfolio.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any product team building or operating intelligent call routing, customer-dispatch communication, or auction-based matching systems for a marketplace platform should treat this portfolio as a live risk vector. The with-prejudice dismissal against Grubhub does not neutralise these patents for other defendants. The without-prejudice counterclaim carve-out also means no invalidity finding exists on the public record to rely on.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five asserted patents against your product’s claim elements, surface prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, and flag any continuation or continuation-in-part applications that could extend Patent Armory’s coverage into next-generation routing architectures. Run a targeted FTO before scaling any communication routing feature that intersects with these claim families.
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 N.D. Illinois
Cases involving NPE assertion of intelligent call routing and telephony control patents in the Northern District of Illinois, with similar swift-dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the call routing and marketplace IP landscape
A 41-day lifecycle against a well-resourced defendant like Grubhub typically reflects either a licensing resolution or an early assessment that litigation costs outweigh recovery.
Fish & Richardson’s early involvement likely accelerated resolution
Grubhub engaged Fish & Richardson — a top-tier patent litigation firm — almost immediately. This signals a credible invalidity or non-infringement defence was assembled quickly, and may have created settlement pressure on Patent Armory before significant motion practice began.
With-prejudice dismissal is a hard stop for these five patents vs. Grubhub
Patent Armory cannot reassert US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, or US10237420 against Grubhub. Any future monetisation strategy for these patents must target different defendants in the online marketplace and call routing space.
Patent v Grubhub — key questions answered
Patent Armory filed an infringement action against Grubhub on 19 December 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony control systems. The parties stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice and all counterclaims without prejudice on 29 January 2025 — just 41 days after filing.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents collectively cover intelligent communication routing systems, auction-based entity matching methods, and telephony control systems with intelligent call routing — technology potentially relevant to Grubhub’s platform communications infrastructure.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that bars Patent Armory from refiling the same infringement claims against Grubhub on these five patents. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no court ruled on infringement or validity. Patent Armory retains the right to assert the same patents against other defendants.
The asymmetric structure — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — suggests a negotiated resolution. Grubhub, represented by Fish & Richardson, likely identified patent validity arguments and preserved optionality to pursue IPR petitions or a declaratory judgment action in the future. This is consistent with a resolution in which Grubhub paid or conceded something in exchange for the with-prejudice bar on Patent Armory’s claims.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Patent Armory from suing Grubhub again on these patents. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was entered. US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, and US10237420 remain issued and potentially enforceable against other companies in online marketplace, logistics, and communication routing sectors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.