Patent Armory v. INB, N.A.: Five Routing Patents, Dismissed in 53 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. brought an infringement action against regional bank INB, N.A. in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting five patents spanning intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case closed just 53 days after filing when Patent Armory voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Five telephony patents, one regional bank, and a swift exit
On 6 September 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action against INB, N.A. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-08170), presided over by Judge Mary M. Rowland. 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. INB, N.A. is a regional banking institution, suggesting the asserted patents likely relate to automated customer-routing or telephony infrastructure deployed in financial services environments.
The case closed on 29 October 2024, just 53 days after filing, when Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally — as of right, without court order — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal. Critically, the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was negotiated or reflects a private resolution; what is confirmed is that the dismissal is without prejudice.
A 53-day lifecycle is notably compressed even by the standards of early-exit patent cases. Patent Armory was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm that frequently handles patent enforcement matters; no defence counsel appears on the public docket, consistent with the pre-answer timing of dismissal. The without-prejudice posture means Patent Armory retains the right to re-file against INB or assert the same five patents against other defendants. Whether a confidential settlement, a licensing agreement, or a strategic decision to redirect enforcement drove the exit cannot be confirmed from available public records.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 53 days
53 days — well below the median patent case duration of 2–3 years in district court
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Patent Armory exercised this right here. Because INB, N.A. had not yet answered, no judicial approval was needed. The rule is mechanical: once the notice is filed, dismissal is automatic and immediate.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice confirmed — but the distinction matters
A dismissal without prejudice leaves the underlying claims legally alive: Patent Armory may re-file against INB or assert the same five patents in a new action. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would extinguish the claims permanently. The public record expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ so refiling is not barred. Whether a private settlement or licence agreement was reached before or alongside this filing is not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims remain liveINB, N.A. exits without admissions or cost exposure
INB, N.A. is dismissed from this proceeding without any finding of infringement, invalidity, or liability. Because dismissal preceded any answer, no fee-shifting motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) has been triggered on the public record. However, the without-prejudice posture means INB cannot rely on claim preclusion; it remains exposed to the same patents if Patent Armory — or a successor — chooses to re-file.
No merits adjudicationFive routing patents remain enforceable and unresolved
None of the five asserted patents — spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching auctions — were invalidated, limited, or adjudicated in this proceeding. Financial institutions and telecoms-infrastructure providers deploying similar routing technology should note that Patent Armory’s portfolio survives this case in full. The swift dismissal is consistent with a licensing-first enforcement model where early resolution avoids costly litigation without prejudicing future assertion campaigns.
Portfolio intact post-dismissalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent licensing and enforcement entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four related routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | INB, N.A. | Individual | INB, N.A. — U.S. regional bank and alleged user of patented telephony routing technologySearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary M. Rowland | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms that INB, N.A. had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural threshold for plaintiff’s unilateral right of dismissal. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: it preserves Patent Armory’s ability to re-assert the same five patents against the same or different defendants in future proceedings. No merits ruling, claim construction, or invalidity finding was issued, leaving the patent portfolio’s enforceability entirely unaffected.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
The five asserted patents collectively cover a technical cluster centred on intelligent routing of communications — most notably telephone calls — and the use of algorithmic or auction-based methods to match callers with agents, services, or entities. US9456086B1 and US10237420B1 address intelligent communication routing systems and methods; US7023979B1 and US7269253B1 protect telephony control systems with intelligent call routing; and US10491748B1 covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction context. The application dates span multiple generations, suggesting a layered continuation strategy designed to maintain enforceable coverage as routing technology evolved.
This portfolio is commercially significant because intelligent call routing and contact-centre orchestration are standard infrastructure in banking, insurance, and enterprise customer service. The auction-based entity-matching patent (US10491748B1) may extend coverage into marketplace or lead-routing platforms. Financial institutions and telecoms vendors operating contact centres, IVR systems, or digital routing middleware should treat these patents as live enforcement risk. The absence of any IPR, CBM, or validity challenge in this case means the patents carry full presumption of validity going forward.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and related routing patents?
Any product team building or procuring intelligent call routing, contact-centre orchestration, telephony control middleware, or auction-based lead-routing systems should assess freedom-to-operate against this five-patent portfolio. The risk is not hypothetical: these patents were actively asserted against a regional bank in September 2024, and the without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement can resume. Vendors supplying routing infrastructure to financial institutions carry particular exposure given the sector targeting visible in this action.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five asserted patents against your product’s technical architecture, identify independent and dependent claim scope, flag continuation family members that may extend coverage, and surface prior art that could support a validity challenge. Running a structured FTO before deployment — or before acquiring a company with routing technology — is materially cheaper than defending a district court infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar telephony routing patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable intelligent call routing and telephony patent infringement actions filed in U.S. district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the telephony and banking IP landscape
A five-patent enforcement action resolved in 53 days carries clear signals for routing-technology IP strategy across financial services.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal licensing activity — not weakness
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses before the defendant even answers, it frequently suggests a licensing deal or pre-litigation settlement was reached privately. Companies in the telephony and financial-services routing space should treat such cases as potential signals of licensing pressure rather than enforcement failures. Patent Armory’s portfolio remains intact and may be asserted again.
Five live patents covering routing tech represent real FTO exposure
US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 were not challenged, invalidated, or litigated to judgment. Any company deploying intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, or entity-matching auction infrastructure should assess freedom-to-operate against this portfolio, particularly in customer-service and contact-centre contexts.
Patent v INB — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against INB, N.A. on 6 September 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony control systems. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 29 October 2024 — 53 days later — before INB had filed any answer, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued.
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These cover intelligent communication routing systems and methods, telephony control systems with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction. The portfolio spans multiple application generations, suggesting a continuation strategy.
INB, N.A. is dismissed from this proceeding with no finding of infringement or liability. However, the without-prejudice designation means Patent Armory retains the right to re-file the same claims against INB in the future. INB cannot assert claim preclusion as a defence in any subsequent action on the same patents. No cost or fee award appears on the public record.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not extinguish the underlying claims. Patent Armory may re-file against INB, N.A. or assert the same five patents against other defendants in the banking, financial services, or telephony infrastructure sectors. The public record does not disclose any settlement or licence that would constrain future enforcement.
The public record does not state a reason. Early voluntary dismissals in patent enforcement actions are sometimes consistent with a licensing agreement or pre-litigation settlement reached privately. They may also reflect a strategic decision to redirect enforcement resources. Plaintiff’s firm Rabicoff Law LLC is a repeat enforcement counsel, and the without-prejudice posture preserves all future options. No confirmed reason is available from the docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.