Patent Armory v. LetsGetChecked: Five Call Routing Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against health-testing platform LetsGetChecked in the Southern District of New York, asserting five patents spanning intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. All claims were dismissed with prejudice in just 91 days — a resolution pace that suggests early-stage motion practice or negotiated exit rather than merits adjudication.
PAE asserts five routing patents against a digital health platform
On 30 December 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. — a patent assertion entity represented by Rabicoff Law LLC — filed an infringement complaint in the Southern District of New York against LetsGetChecked, INC. (Case No. 1:24-cv-10016). The complaint asserted five US patents covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control with smart call routing, and method-and-system frameworks for matching entities in an auction context. LetsGetChecked operates a direct-to-consumer health testing platform, and the assertion appears to target how the company routes customer communications or manages scheduling and matching workflows.
The case closed on 31 March 2025, just 91 days after filing. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden of the S.D.N.Y. granted dismissal of all claims against LetsGetChecked with prejudice, meaning Patent Armory is permanently barred from re-asserting these specific claims against this defendant. Fish & Richardson PC — a firm well-resourced for early-stage dispositive motions — represented LetsGetChecked, which likely contributed to the swift resolution.
The 91-day lifespan is notably short even for cases that settle early. This pace is consistent with either a pre-answer motion to dismiss (e.g., Section 101 patent-eligibility challenge), a rapid negotiated resolution, or a voluntary dismissal reframed as with-prejudice. The public record does not disclose settlement terms, financial consideration, or whether a licence was exchanged. What is clear is that the with-prejudice designation forecloses any revival of this specific dispute.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 91 days
91 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars all future re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Patent Armory cannot re-file the same infringement claims against LetsGetChecked in any US federal court. Whether this resulted from a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a Section 101 eligibility challenge, or a negotiated consent order, the legal effect is identical: the door is permanently closed on this specific dispute.
Claim preclusion appliesPatent Armory loses right to pursue LetsGetChecked on these patents
The with-prejudice designation is a material adverse outcome for a patent assertion entity whose litigation leverage depends on the credible threat of re-filing. Patent Armory retains ownership of the five asserted patents and may pursue other defendants, but cannot revisit this defendant on these claims. The rapid closure — 91 days — suggests the assertion may not have survived early scrutiny or that a resolution was reached on terms unfavourable to the plaintiff.
Patents survive; this claim does notLetsGetChecked secures permanent protection from this claim set
LetsGetChecked achieved a with-prejudice dismissal in under three months — a strong defensive outcome. Represented by Fish & Richardson PC, a firm with deep patent litigation capability, the defendant appears to have moved decisively. The dismissal with prejudice removes overhang on the company’s communication-routing and customer-matching infrastructure, though it does not eliminate patent risk from other assertion entities holding comparable routing technology claims.
Full dismissal secured in 91 daysPAE routing-patent risk remains live for digital health platforms
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of PAE assertions targeting call-routing and communication-orchestration features deployed across digital health, telemedicine, and consumer services. Although LetsGetChecked has neutralised this specific threat, companies in the digital health sector that rely on intelligent routing, IVR, or entity-matching APIs should treat this case as a prompt to conduct FTO analysis against the remaining Patent Armory portfolio and comparable NPE holdings.
Sector-wide routing patent riskFull 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 | LetsGetChecked, INC. | Company | LetsGetChecked — direct-to-consumer digital health testing platformSearch 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 | Jeffrey Mok | Attorney | Counsel for LetsGetChecked, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John T. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for LetsGetChecked, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Frank Autuoro | Attorney | Counsel for LetsGetChecked, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP (John Johnson) | Law Firm | Representing LetsGetChecked, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing LetsGetChecked, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (NYC) | Law Firm | Representing LetsGetChecked, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jennifer H. Rearden | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants dismissal of all claims with prejudice on consent or motion — the phrasing ‘hereby GRANTED’ indicates a formal court order rather than a self-executing notice. A with-prejudice dismissal at district court level carries res judicata effect: Patent Armory is barred from bringing the same claims against LetsGetChecked in any subsequent proceeding. The order does not disclose whether a Section 101 ruling, claim construction dispute, or negotiated agreement underpinned the outcome, leaving the substantive validity of the five patents an open question for future defendants.
US9456086B1 and four further patents — intelligent call routing and entity matching
The five asserted patents span two overlapping technical domains: intelligent communication routing (US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US10237420B1) and auction-based entity-matching methods (US7023979B1). The routing patents, with application dates ranging from the mid-2000s to 2017, protect systems and methods for dynamically directing telephone and digital communications based on caller attributes, agent availability, or routing logic. The entity-matching patent covers a method and system for pairing participants in an auction-style framework — a claim architecture sometimes applied to lead-generation or scheduling contexts.
From a strategic standpoint, patents in the intelligent call routing category occupy contested claim-space. Post-Alice, many routing and telephony patents have faced validity challenges on Section 101 grounds, particularly where the claims recite abstract matchmaking or routing logic without a sufficiently concrete technical improvement. The breadth of this five-patent portfolio — spanning applications filed across roughly fifteen years — suggests a deliberate assertion strategy designed to cover multiple product generations. For digital health, telemedicine, and consumer services companies deploying any form of inbound call management, scheduling, or customer-matching, these patents represent a category risk warranting proactive FTO review.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any company operating intelligent call routing, IVR systems, scheduling APIs, or entity-matching workflows in a customer-facing context should assess exposure to this patent family. The asserted products — ‘Intelligent communication routing system’, ‘Telephony control system with intelligent call routing’, and ‘Method and system for matching entities in an auction’ — map to features commonly deployed in digital health platforms, telehealth appointment booking, insurance intake, and customer service automation. If your product routes inbound communications based on dynamic attributes or matches users to service providers algorithmically, an FTO review is warranted.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map claim scope across all five Patent Armory patents, identify prior art that may inform a validity challenge, and surface related NPE portfolios asserting comparable routing or entity-matching claims. Given the with-prejudice outcome in this case, Eureka can also help your team track Patent Armory’s litigation history across other defendants — providing early warning of enforcement campaigns before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar call routing and PAE patent cases in the S.D.N.Y.
Cases involving PAE assertion of intelligent call-routing and telephony patents in the Southern District of New York, with comparable early-dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the digital health IP landscape
A five-patent PAE assertion resolved in 91 days with prejudice reveals both the aggression and fragility of routing-patent campaigns against health-tech platforms.
Fish & Richardson’s early intervention likely drove the rapid close
Engaging high-calibre patent litigation counsel at the outset — Fish & Richardson deployed three attorneys — typically signals a strategy of early dispositive motion practice. Section 101 challenges to abstract-idea-adjacent routing patents have a strong track record in the S.D.N.Y., and the 91-day window is consistent with a successful Rule 12 motion timeline.
With-prejudice outcome limits PAE re-assertion leverage in this district
Patent Armory retains the five patents and can pursue other defendants, but the with-prejudice record weakens its negotiating posture in follow-on campaigns. Defendants approached by Patent Armory on the same patents can now cite this outcome as evidence that the claims failed early-stage scrutiny against a well-funded defendant.
Patent v LetsGetChecked — key questions answered
All claims were dismissed with prejudice on 31 March 2025, approximately 91 days after filing. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden of the S.D.N.Y. granted the dismissal, permanently barring Patent Armory from re-asserting the same claims against LetsGetChecked. No settlement terms or fee award are disclosed in the public record.
Patent Armory asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction. Application dates span from the early 2000s through 2017.
A with-prejudice dismissal bars Patent Armory from re-filing the same infringement claims against LetsGetChecked in any US federal court. However, Patent Armory retains ownership of the five patents and may assert them against other defendants. The dismissal does not constitute a ruling on patent validity — the patents remain in force unless separately challenged via IPR or inter partes proceedings.
The 91-day resolution is consistent with several scenarios: a successful Rule 12(b)(6) or Section 101 motion to dismiss filed by Fish & Richardson PC on behalf of LetsGetChecked; a negotiated consent dismissal; or an agreed exit following early case assessment. The speed and with-prejudice designation both suggest that the defendant moved assertively rather than allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
Companies deploying intelligent call routing, IVR, scheduling APIs, or entity-matching workflows in customer-facing digital health applications should assess their exposure. Patent Armory retains all five asserted patents and can pursue other defendants. The claim categories — routing logic and entity matching — have faced Section 101 scrutiny, but the risk of receiving a demand letter remains. A proactive FTO analysis is advisable for companies in the telehealth, insurance intake, and consumer health sectors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.