Patent Armory v. Impossible Foods: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed in 47 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit in the Delaware District Court asserting five patents covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against Impossible Foods, Inc. The case resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 47 days — a resolution timeline that suggests a rapid negotiated exit rather than substantive litigation.
A Non-Practicing Entity’s Rapid Exit: Five Patents, One Stipulation
On April 17, 2025, Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Impossible Foods, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — broadly covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and methods for matching entities in an auction context.
The case closed on June 3, 2025, just 47 days after filing, via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff’s claims against Impossible Foods were dismissed with prejudice — permanently extinguishing Patent Armory’s right to re-assert these patents against this defendant. Impossible Foods’ counterclaims against Patent Armory were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to pursue those claims in future proceedings if warranted. Each party bears its own costs and fees.
A 47-day resolution is unusually fast even by the standards of NPE litigation, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or a decision by Patent Armory that litigation was not commercially viable — before any substantive court proceedings began. The public record does not disclose settlement terms or any financial consideration. The asymmetric dismissal structure, with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and counterclaims without, is a common feature of negotiated exits in NPE cases and warrants attention for future enforcement risk mapping.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 47 days
47 days — well below the multi-year average for patent infringement actions in D. Del.
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. Dismissal ‘with prejudice’ on the plaintiff’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Patent Armory from re-asserting these five patents against Impossible Foods in any future action. This is the highest-finality voluntary exit mechanism available at the district court level.
Permanent bar on re-filingPatent Armory permanently foreclosed against this defendant
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Patent Armory has surrendered its right to assert all five asserted patents against Impossible Foods in perpetuity. This strongly suggests either a licensing arrangement was reached privately, or Patent Armory determined that litigation against this defendant was not commercially viable. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The five patents remain in Patent Armory’s portfolio and can still be asserted against other parties.
Claims extinguished vs. this defendantImpossible Foods escapes liability; counterclaims preserved
Impossible Foods secured a with-prejudice dismissal of all infringement claims, providing permanent protection from re-litigation of these patents by this plaintiff. Notably, Impossible Foods’ own counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the company retains the option to revive those claims — for example, declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement — in a future proceeding should circumstances warrant. Fish & Richardson PC represented the defendant.
Counterclaims preserved without prejudiceNPE telephony patent risk remains active for other food-tech companies
Patent Armory’s rapid exit against Impossible Foods does not neutralise the underlying patent portfolio. The five communication routing patents — spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — remain enforceable against other defendants. Companies in adjacent sectors that rely on third-party call routing, IVR, or customer communication platforms should assess whether their vendor arrangements create exposure to this portfolio. The quick resolution provides no claim-construction guidance.
Portfolio remains active against othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Non-practicing entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four further communication routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Impossible Foods, Inc. | Company | Impossible Foods, Inc. — plant-based food and beverage company targeted in telephony patent suitSearch 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 Impossible Foods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Impossible Foods, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is commercially significant. Dismissal of plaintiff’s claims ‘with prejudice’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) constitutes a final judgment on the merits as to Patent Armory’s enforcement rights against Impossible Foods on all five asserted patents — these claims cannot be re-filed. The simultaneous dismissal of counterclaims ‘without prejudice’ is a deliberate carve-out, preserving Impossible Foods’ declaratory judgment options. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a plaintiff capitulation.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent Communication Routing System and Method
US9456086B1 (application no. US12/719827) is the lead asserted patent, covering intelligent communication routing systems and methods — technology that governs how inbound and outbound communications are dynamically directed across telephony and digital channels. The portfolio spans multiple filing generations: US7023979B1 and US7269253B1 represent earlier-generation telephony control patents, while US10237420B1 and US10491748B1 reflect continuation or continuation-in-part filings extending coverage into more recent system architectures. US10491748B1’s auction-based entity matching claim scope is notably broader and may capture algorithmic matching in digital marketplace and customer engagement contexts.
For the food-tech and consumer goods sector, the strategic significance of this portfolio lies not in core product IP but in enterprise infrastructure risk. Intelligent call routing and telephony control patents are increasingly asserted against companies that rely on cloud-based contact centre platforms, IVR vendors, or automated customer communication tools — none of which are developed in-house by defendants like Impossible Foods. This creates an indemnification gap: the patent risk sits in the defendant’s vendor stack, not its own R&D. Any company deploying third-party communications infrastructure should assess whether their vendor agreements include IP indemnification covering this patent cluster.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
If your organisation deploys intelligent call routing, IVR systems, telephony control platforms, or auction-based entity-matching technologies — whether in-house or via a third-party vendor — this five-patent cluster warrants a freedom-to-operate review. The fact that Patent Armory brought this action against a plant-based food company demonstrates the portfolio is being asserted against companies that use, not build, these technologies. R&D and procurement teams evaluating CX infrastructure, contact centre platforms, or marketplace matching systems should treat these patents as live enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claim language of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 against your product or vendor stack in minutes. Eureka surfaces claim element-by-element analysis, identifies prior art that may narrow enforceability, and flags related family members that could extend the risk perimeter. For IP counsel preparing a clearance opinion or vendor indemnification assessment, Eureka provides the prior art landscape and claim mapping needed to support a defensible FTO position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE patent cases: intelligent call routing and telephony litigation in D. Del.
Cases involving non-practicing entities asserting intelligent communication routing and telephony control patents in Delaware District Court — with comparable resolution timelines and dismissal structures.
What this case signals for the communication routing IP landscape
A 47-day NPE suit dismissed with prejudice in Delaware raises immediate questions about portfolio strategy and enterprise exposure.
Speed of resolution is itself a signal — NPE economics at work
When an NPE resolves an infringement action in under 50 days with a with-prejudice dismissal and no fee award, the most commercially rational explanation is a private licensing payment. IP teams at companies receiving similar demand letters from Patent Armory should treat this case as a data point on settlement velocity and likely licensing expectations rather than as a pure litigation outcome.
The asymmetric dismissal structure creates residual risk for Patent Armory
Counterclaims dismissed without prejudice is not a clean exit for the plaintiff. Impossible Foods retains the theoretical ability to seek declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement against these five patents in a future action. IP counsel monitoring Patent Armory’s enforcement activity should note this structural exposure in any future licensing negotiations or litigation posture assessment.
Patent v Impossible — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means Patent Armory permanently surrendered its right to assert all five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — against Impossible Foods. The dismissal functions as a final adjudication on the merits and cannot be undone. However, the patents remain enforceable against all other third parties.
The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is a common feature of negotiated NPE exits. Dismissing counterclaims without prejudice preserves Impossible Foods’ ability to seek declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement in a future proceeding. This is a deliberate protective carve-out that IP counsel typically insist upon, ensuring the defendant is not contractually or procedurally foreclosed from challenging the patents if Patent Armory re-enters the market or the portfolio is acquired.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1 and US10491748B1 (intelligent communication routing and auction-based entity matching), US7269253B1 and US7023979B1 (telephony control systems with intelligent call routing), and US10237420B1 (communication routing systems). The portfolio spans IVR, dynamic call routing, and algorithmic entity-matching technologies embedded in enterprise customer communication infrastructure.
A 47-day resolution — from filing to stipulated dismissal — is significantly faster than the typical multi-year trajectory of patent infringement litigation in Delaware. This timeline is more consistent with a pre-litigation licensing negotiation that concluded shortly after the complaint was filed, or with Patent Armory determining that this particular defendant was not a commercially viable litigation target. No substantive court proceedings appear to have occurred during this period.
No. A with-prejudice dismissal is specific to the parties in the stipulation. The five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain fully enforceable against any other company. The dismissal provides no claim-construction rulings, no invalidity findings, and no narrowing of patent scope that other defendants could use defensively. Companies in adjacent sectors using similar communication routing technologies retain full exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.