Patent Armory v. Marriott International: Voluntary Dismissal After 90 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Marriott International, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case closed just 90 days after filing via a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal before Marriott had answered the complaint.
Five routing patents, one hospitality giant, resolved before first answer
On 16 August 2023, Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action against Marriott International, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00603) before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted five US 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 Marriott's intelligent communication routing infrastructure and associated telephony systems.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiff dismissed the action with prejudice, and that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The dismissal was filed before Marriott had answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, which is the procedural threshold that makes a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal available as of right. The specific terms underlying the dismissal, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
The 90-day duration — from filing to closure — is notably short even by the standards of W.D. Texas's historically accelerated patent docket. The case closed before Marriott was required to substantively engage with the merits. What drove the early resolution is not disclosed in the public record, and no court-adjudicated findings on validity, infringement, or claim construction were reached.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 90 days
Case resolved in 90 days — well below median patent case duration in W.D. Texas
US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, US10237420 — Intelligent Routing & Telephony
Any company operating intelligent call routing, telephony control infrastructure, or auction-based communication matching — particularly in hospitality, travel technology, telecommunications, or enterprise contact-centre markets — should treat these five patents as active risk. No court has ruled them invalid or found non-infringement. The pre-answer dismissal here produced zero adjudicated claim scope, meaning the patents' reach is as broad as their claims on their face.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available as of right because Marriott had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. The order states the dismissal is with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs. No substantive findings on the merits of the five asserted patents were reached, leaving their validity and infringement scope entirely unresolved by this proceeding.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a right of unilateral dismissal
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Marriott had not yet done either, Patent Armory exercised this right unilaterally. The Basis of Termination is recorded as Voluntary dismissal; the docket order characterises the dismissal as with prejudice, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Pre-answer voluntary exitThe public record is silent on the prejudice distinction
The Basis of Termination is recorded simply as 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying with or without prejudice. The verdict text states the dismissal is 'with prejudice', which would bar Patent Armory from re-asserting the same five patents against Marriott on the same claims. However, because the public record does not disclose the terms that may have driven the filing, neither characterisation can be confirmed as the complete picture. Readers should consult the docket directly to verify the operative order.
Prejudice status: check docketMarriott exits without a merits ruling
Marriott International was dismissed before filing an answer, meaning no court-adjudicated finding on infringement, invalidity, or claim construction was ever made. If the dismissal is with prejudice as the order states, Marriott gains protection from re-litigation of these specific claims by Patent Armory. No fee award was entered against either party, leaving Marriott bearing its own defence costs incurred in the 90-day period.
No merits adjudicationRouting patents remain active enforcement tools
The five asserted patents — covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — received no validity or infringement determination in this case. Other companies in the hospitality and telecommunications sectors operating similar intelligent routing infrastructure remain potentially exposed to assertion of these patents in separate actions. The absence of any adjudicated claim construction or invalidity finding means the patents' scope is unresolved in the public record.
Patents unchallenged on meritsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Marriott International, Inc. | Company | /Search 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 | Jennifer A. H. Doan | Attorney | Counsel for Marriott International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haltom & Doan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Marriott International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the intelligent communication routing space
Patent Armory's five-patent assertion against Marriott surfaces broader filing and innovation trends in telephony routing, call management, and entity-matching technology worth tracking.
Patent Armory's routing and telephony assertion portfolio
Patent Armory assembled a portfolio spanning early 2000s telephony control through mid-2010s intelligent routing systems. Understanding the breadth and citation network of this portfolio — including any related continuations or divisionals still in prosecution — helps identify whether further assertions in adjacent technology areas are likely.
PAE portfolio mappingFiling trends in intelligent call routing and telephony control
The asserted patents cover a technology domain — intelligent routing logic, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching — that has seen continued filing activity as cloud PBX, AI-driven call routing, and omnichannel contact-centre platforms have emerged. Mapping current filing density around these application numbers reveals which competitors are building in adjacent spaces.
Routing tech filing trendsMarriott's patent activity in communications and reservation tech
Marriott International operates large-scale reservation and guest-communications infrastructure. Assessing Marriott's own patent filings in routing, telephony, and customer interaction systems reveals whether the company is building defensive IP in these domains — or relying on third-party technology licensing — which informs its exposure profile for future assertions.
Marriott IP positioningAdjacent innovation gaps near auction-based entity matching
The auction-based entity matching patents (US7023979B1) sit at the intersection of routing logic and dynamic pricing or allocation algorithms. Modern AI-driven contact-centre orchestration and real-time bidding for customer service routing represent adjacent spaces where filing density may be lower — a potential white-space opportunity for R&D teams building next-generation routing platforms.
Routing white spaceSimilar intelligent routing and telephony patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore patent assertion cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and communication matching patents filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the telephony routing IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved in 90 days with no merits ruling — this pattern carries specific signals for routing IP risk management.
Pre-answer dismissals leave patent scope entirely unresolved
No claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no infringement finding emerged from this case. Companies operating intelligent call routing or telephony control systems — particularly in hospitality — should not treat this dismissal as clearing the patents. The five asserted patents remain in force with their scope undetermined by any court.
W.D. Texas remains a venue to monitor for routing patent assertions
Judge Albright's docket continues to attract patent assertion entities. The 90-day lifecycle here is consistent with pre-answer resolution patterns seen in PAE cases in this district. In-house teams should monitor Patent Armory's filing activity for further assertions in this technology domain.
Patent v Marriott — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five 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 case was filed in the Western District of Texas on 16 August 2023.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Patent Armory dismissed the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), characterising the dismissal as with prejudice. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No court-adjudicated findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction were reached. The specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is filed by the plaintiff as of right before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. It produces no ruling on the merits. The five patents received no validity or infringement determination in this case and remain in force. If the dismissal is with prejudice as the order states, Patent Armory is barred from re-asserting the same claims against Marriott, but third parties receive no such protection.
Patent Armory was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Marriott International was represented by Jennifer A. H. Doan of Haltom & Doan, LLP. The case was before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.
The case lasted 90 days from filing (16 August 2023) to closure (14 November 2023), which is notably short even for W.D. Texas, a district historically associated with accelerated patent scheduling. The case closed before Marriott filed an answer, meaning the parties never reached claim construction, discovery, or any merits briefing. What drove the early resolution is not disclosed in the public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.