Patent Armory, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Infringement action filed 27 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 24 Aug 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8831205B1US10237420B1
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00541
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Jul 2023 – 24 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 28 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Intelligent communication routing · Method and system for matching entities in an auction
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
Intelligent communication routing
A system and method for communicating in a communication network, comprising presenting a communication comprising data over a communications network to a router, said router being adapted to route the communication to one of a plurality of available network destinations; automatically executing a communication targeting algorithm in the router, based at least in part on the data, wherein the communication targeting algorithm operates to contextually jointly analyze a plurality of parameters extracted from the data and a plurality of contextual parameters, to determine an optimum target for the communication, wherein the optimum target varies in dependence on both the data and the context of the communication; and routing the communication in dependence on the algorithm execution.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 9 Sep 2014
- Earliest priority
- 2 May 2008
- Est. expiry
- 7 Mar 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WU, WAI · HELLER, TOBY · HOFFBERG, STEVEN M.
- Classification
- H04M7/00H04L12/28H04M3/523
- Prosecution counsel
- Hoffberg & Associates
- Examiner
- HONG, HARRY S
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
- Inactive
- Granted
- 19 Mar 2019
- Earliest priority
- 7 Mar 2003
- Est. expiry
- 7 Mar 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WU, WAI · HOFFBERG, STEVEN M.
- Classification
- H04M3/00H04M3/42H04M3/523H04M15/00H04M5/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Hoffberg & Associates
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, KHAI N.
Parties of record
Patent Armory, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04M7/00H04L12/28H04M3/523H04M3/00
- Counsel
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Janis E. Clements · Scott Joseph Bornstein
- Firm
- Greenberg Traurig LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Janis E. Clements | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Defendant |
| Scott Joseph Bornstein | Meta Platforms, 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 without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment”
Case 6:23-cv-00541 · W.D. Tex. · closed 24 August 2023
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 6:23-cv-00541?
6:23-cv-00541 is a patent infringement action brought by Patent Armory, Inc. against Meta Platforms, Inc., filed on 27 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 24 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00541?
US8831205B1 (“Intelligent communication routing”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently inactive; US10237420B1 (“Method and system for matching entities in an auction”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Intelligent communication routing and Method and system for matching entities in an auction.
How was case 6:23-cv-00541 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 6:23-cv-00541 take?
28 calendar days, from filing on 27 Jul 2023 to closure on 24 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00541?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Patent Armory. Janis E. Clements and Scott Joseph Bornstein appear for defendant Meta Platforms.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00541 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.