Patent Armory Inc v. JetSuiteX Inc
Infringement action filed 2 Apr 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 16 Jun 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9456086B1US7023979B1
- Case no.
- 3:26-cv-01066
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Brantley Starr
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 2 Apr 2026 – 16 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 75 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Method and system for matching entities in an auction · Telephony control system with intelligent call routing
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Method and system for matching entities in an auction
A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Sep 2016
- Earliest priority
- 7 Mar 2003
- Est. expiry
- 26 Aug 2027
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WU, WAI · HELLER, TOBY · HOFFBERG, STEVEN M.
- Classification
- H04M3/00H04M5/00H04M3/523
- Prosecution counsel
- Hoffberg & Associates
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, KHAI N
Telephony control system with intelligent call routing
A communications management system comprising an input for receiving a communications classification; a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification; a database of agent skill scores; and a processor, for computing, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection, the processor directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Apr 2006
- Earliest priority
- 7 Mar 2002
- Est. expiry
- 13 Nov 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WU, WAI · HELLER, TOBY · HOFFBERG, STEVEN M.
- Classification
- H04M3/00H04M5/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Hoffberg & Associates
- Examiner
- TIEU, BENNY
Parties of record
Patent Armory Inc
- Core tech
- H04M3/00H04M5/00H04M3/523
- Counsel
- Isaac Philip Rabicoff · James O Crewse
- Firm
- Crewse Law Firm, PLLC, Rabicoff Law LLC
JetSuiteX Inc
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brooke Cook Wilson · M. Brett Johnson
- Firm
- Winston Taylor LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Patent Armory Inc | Plaintiff |
| James O Crewse | Patent Armory Inc | Plaintiff |
| Brooke Cook Wilson | JetSuiteX Inc | Defendant |
| M. Brett Johnson | JetSuiteX Inc | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
Case 3:26-cv-01066 · N.D. Tex. · closed 16 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 3:26-cv-01066?
3:26-cv-01066 is a patent infringement action brought by Patent Armory Inc against JetSuiteX Inc, filed on 2 Apr 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 16 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 3:26-cv-01066?
US9456086B1 (“Method and system for matching entities in an auction”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently active; US7023979B1 (“Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Method and system for matching entities in an auction and Telephony control system with intelligent call routing.
How was case 3:26-cv-01066 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 3:26-cv-01066 take?
75 calendar days, from filing on 2 Apr 2026 to closure on 16 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:26-cv-01066?
Chief Judge Brantley Starr presided. Isaac Philip Rabicoff and James O Crewse are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Patent Armory. Brooke Cook Wilson and M. Brett Johnson appear for defendant JetSuiteX.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:26-cv-01066 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.