Patent Armory v. Hertz Global Holdings: 5-Patent Call Routing Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Hertz Global Holdings in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after 265 days, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution that permanently bars Patent Armory from re-filing the same claims against Hertz.
Five-Patent Call Routing Assertion Against Hertz Ends Permanently
On August 12, 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00587), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity matching methods. The accused products span Hertz’s customer-facing telephony and communication infrastructure.
The case closed on May 3, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed by Patent Armory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was joint in form, requiring Hertz’s co-signature, and was entered with prejudice — meaning Patent Armory is permanently barred from asserting the same five patents against Hertz on the same accused products. Crucially, the order specified that each side bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no monetary transfer was recorded in the public docket.
At 265 days, the case resolved well before any trial setting, consistent with pre-discovery negotiation or confidential settlement terms not reflected on the docket. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it goes beyond a standard voluntary dismissal and may reflect a negotiated covenant not to sue or a licensing arrangement reached off the record. What drove Patent Armory to accept a permanent bar on these claims — rather than a without-prejudice exit — remains unknown from the public record, but the mutual cost-bearing provision suggests the resolution was bilateral.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 265 days
265 days — resolved before trial, consistent with pre-discovery or early settlement in W.D. Tex.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures, distinguishing it from a unilateral plaintiff exit. The ‘with prejudice’ designation operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata — Patent Armory cannot re-file these five patent claims against Hertz on the same accused conduct. This is a stronger termination than a standard voluntary dismissal and typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral retreat.
Permanent bar on re-filingPatent Armory permanently surrenders its claims against Hertz
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Patent Armory accepts a permanent bar against Hertz on these five patents for the accused products. This is unusual for a plaintiff unless a confidential licence fee, covenant not to sue, or structured payment was agreed off-docket. The mutual cost-bearing provision means Patent Armory recovered no court-awarded fees. The patents remain enforceable against third parties — only the Hertz claims are extinguished.
Claims extinguished vs. Hertz onlyHertz achieves permanent protection from these five patents
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Hertz a durable shield: Patent Armory cannot re-assert US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, or US10237420B1 against Hertz’s telephony systems under the same infringement theory. Hertz’s counsel (Winston & Strawn) secured this outcome without a fee award against plaintiff, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested 35 U.S.C. § 285 exceptional case finding.
Permanent covenant equivalentPatents remain live — other operators in call routing face ongoing risk
This dismissal resolves only the Hertz dispute. All five patents — covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching auction methods — remain in force and may be asserted against other companies in vehicle rental, hospitality, financial services, or any sector operating intelligent IVR or routing infrastructure. Companies that have not received a covenant not to sue from Patent Armory should treat these patents as an active assertion risk.
Third-party risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four further call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. | Company | Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. — multinational vehicle rental company with customer telephony infrastructureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac 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 | Christopher Thomas Gresalfi | Attorney | Counsel for Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Krishnan Padmanabhan | Attorney | Counsel for Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston & Strawn, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order reflects a bilateral stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring Hertz’s co-signature — distinguishing this from a unilateral plaintiff exit. The with-prejudice designation operates as a final adjudication under res judicata, permanently extinguishing Patent Armory’s claims on all five asserted patents against Hertz. The cost-neutrality clause (‘each party shall bear its own costs’) is consistent with a negotiated exit and suggests no exceptional case motion was pursued by Hertz, which Winston & Strawn may have reserved as leverage in settlement discussions.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent Communication Routing System
The five asserted patents span two core technology clusters: intelligent telephony routing (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US10237420B1, US7269253B1) and auction-based entity matching for communication systems (US7023979B1). The routing patents, with application dates ranging from the mid-2000s through 2017, cover methods and systems for dynamically directing inbound calls based on caller data, agent availability, and routing logic — technology central to enterprise IVR and contact centre operations. US7023979B1 adds a distinct layer by covering auction-based matching of communication parties, suggesting applicability to platforms where routing decisions involve competitive or ranked selection.
For the vehicle rental and enterprise services sector, these patents target the communication backbone used to handle customer service calls, reservation routing, and support triage — functions that Hertz and its competitors rely on at scale. The breadth of the portfolio, spanning both legacy telephony architectures and more recent routing system claims, creates layered risk for any company operating intelligent contact centre infrastructure. As cloud-based CCaaS platforms increasingly replace legacy IVR systems, operators should assess whether new deployments fall within the scope of the ‘086, ‘748, ‘420, ‘253, or ‘979 patents before migration.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory call routing portfolio?
Any organisation operating intelligent call routing, IVR systems, or auction-based communication matching — including vehicle rental operators, insurance carriers, financial services firms, and CCaaS vendors — should assess freedom-to-operate against Patent Armory’s five-patent portfolio. The Hertz dismissal confirms these patents were actively asserted in 2023–2024 and remain in force. If your product routes inbound communications based on dynamic logic, caller attributes, or competitive ranking, each of the five asserted patents warrants individual claim mapping.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against the independent claims of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 in minutes — identifying claim elements that overlap with your routing logic, flagging prior art that may limit enforceability, and surfacing any other active Patent Armory assertions in the same technology domain. For product teams preparing CCaaS migrations or IVR upgrades, an Eureka FTO run before deployment is the most cost-effective risk checkpoint available.
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 W.D. Texas
Cases involving intelligent call routing and telephony control patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas — including other Patent Armory assertions.
What this case signals for the call routing and telephony IP landscape
Patent Armory’s five-patent assertion against Hertz illustrates the continued litigation risk posed by telephony and call routing patents to enterprise operators.
W.D. Tex. remains a preferred venue for call routing patent assertions
Judge Albright’s docket in the Western District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting enterprise telephony infrastructure. Companies operating IVR systems, intelligent routing, or auction-based call distribution should monitor new filings in this court as an early-warning signal of assertion campaigns in the sector.
With-prejudice exit suggests a negotiated resolution — not litigation strength
A stipulated with-prejudice dismissal with mutual cost-bearing typically indicates the parties reached a private resolution. For defendants in similar cases, early engagement and a structured exit can secure permanent protection without an exceptional case finding — and often at lower total cost than prolonged litigation through claim construction.
Patent v Hertz — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity matching methods — technologies relevant to Hertz’s customer service telephony infrastructure.
The stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final adjudication under res judicata. Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting the five patents against Hertz on the same accused products and conduct. The patents remain enforceable against third parties not covered by the dismissal order.
The mutual cost-bearing provision — ‘each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees’ — is consistent with a negotiated exit. It suggests Hertz did not pursue an exceptional case motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would require showing the case was objectively unreasonable. This outcome typically reflects a bilateral agreement rather than a contested ruling on litigation conduct.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes only Patent Armory’s claims against Hertz for the accused products. All five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain in force and may be asserted against other defendants. Companies operating intelligent routing or IVR infrastructure who have not received a covenant not to sue should treat these patents as an active risk.
Patent Armory was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Hertz Global Holdings was represented by Christopher Thomas Gresalfi and Krishnan Padmanabhan of Winston & Strawn, LLP. The case was presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.