Patent Armory v. Modivcare Solutions: Five Call Routing Patents, Voluntarily Dismissed
Patent Armory, Inc. sued Modivcare Solutions, LLC in Colorado federal court asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case closed after just 102 days when Patent Armory voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before Modivcare had answered — leaving the door open for future assertion.
Pre-answer dismissal in a five-patent call routing infringement action
On September 6, 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Modivcare Solutions, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before Judge Susan Prose. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching. Modivcare Solutions is a managed transportation and health connectivity company whose services involve routing and dispatching calls for non-emergency medical transportation.
The case closed on December 17, 2024, just 102 days after filing, when Patent Armory filed a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss without court order at any time before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. The dismissal was expressly without prejudice, meaning Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same claims against Modivcare in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The brevity of the litigation — resolved entirely before Modivcare had responded on the merits — is consistent with several scenarios common in patent assertion cases: confidential settlement, a decision to refile in a different venue or with revised claim mapping, or a strategic pause pending parallel proceedings. Because no terms were recorded publicly, the actual driver of dismissal remains unknown from the record. Patent professionals should note that the without-prejudice designation preserves full offensive optionality for Patent Armory.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 102 days
102 days — resolved before defendant’s answer was due
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court order
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order — and without the defendant’s consent — provided the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. Modivcare had done neither. This is a unilateral procedural step that carries no merits adjudication whatsoever; the court makes no finding on validity, infringement, or enforceability of any of the five asserted patents.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: the public record is silent on terms
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiff is legally free to refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar refiling — functionally a win for the defendant. Here, the verdict text expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ which preserves Patent Armory’s enforcement options. However, the public record does not reveal whether any side payment, licensing arrangement, or covenant not to sue was agreed privately. Parties sometimes settle confidentially and then file a without-prejudice dismissal as the public-facing closing mechanism.
Refiling rights preservedPatent Armory retains full enforcement optionality across all five patents
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Patent Armory can reassert any or all of the five patents against Modivcare — or redirect those patents against other targets in the call routing and health connectivity space. The early dismissal before any claim construction or invalidity briefing also means no adverse rulings have been entered that could weaken future enforcement. Patent Armory’s litigation posture on these assets remains essentially unchanged from the day the complaint was filed.
Enforcement optionality intactModivcare avoids judgment but faces residual re-assertion risk
Modivcare obtained dismissal without having to mount a substantive defense, which avoids litigation costs and eliminates any injunction risk in this proceeding. However, the without-prejudice nature means Modivcare cannot treat this case as resolved. If no confidential covenant-not-to-sue was negotiated, Modivcare remains exposed to re-assertion of all five call routing patents. Companies in this position typically conduct an internal FTO review or seek a licensing agreement to reduce residual risk.
Re-assertion risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four related call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Modivcare Solutions, LLC | Company | Managed transportation and health connectivity services companySearch 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 Susan Prose | Judge | Colorado District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal was filed unilaterally by Patent Armory under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires no court approval when the defendant has not yet answered. The express ‘without prejudice’ language is the critical qualifier: it forecloses any argument by Modivcare that the claims are extinguished. No findings on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement were made. The absence of a with-prejudice stipulation or a joint dismissal order leaves open the question of whether a private resolution — such as a licence or covenant not to sue — accompanied this filing.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing and telephony control patents
The five asserted patents span two decades of innovation in telephony and communication routing. The earliest — US7023979B1 (application filed 2003) and US7269253B1 — cover foundational telephony control and intelligent call routing architectures. US9456086B1 and US10491748B1 represent later-generation embodiments of routing logic, while US10237420B1 (application filed 2017) extends the portfolio into more modern routing and entity-matching methodologies. Together, the portfolio covers the logic layer that determines how inbound communications are distributed across service agents or platforms.
For companies operating in health connectivity, non-emergency medical transportation dispatch, and contact centre technology, this portfolio represents meaningful IP risk. The auction-based entity matching patent (US10491748B1) in particular may read on algorithmic dispatch systems that match callers to available service providers in real time — a core function in NEMT and telehealth platforms. The age spread across the portfolio also means that prior art challenges would need to address multiple priority dates, raising the cost of any IPR or invalidity defence.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any company operating an intelligent call routing, IVR dispatch, or algorithmic communication matching platform should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The without-prejudice dismissal means all five patents remain fully asserted and Patent Armory retains the right to refile. NEMT platforms, telehealth providers, and contact centre software vendors — particularly those using real-time caller-to-agent matching or auction-based routing — face the highest exposure and should prioritise FTO clearance before the next assertion cycle.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s communication routing architecture against the independent claims of all five patents in this portfolio simultaneously. By identifying which claim elements your platform does and does not practise, Eureka helps your team prioritise design-around options, build a prosecution history estoppel analysis, or flag whether a proactive IPR petition is warranted. Given the portfolio’s breadth across routing logic and telephony control, a consolidated multi-patent FTO review is strongly recommended.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar call routing and telephony patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore patent infringement cases asserting intelligent call routing and telephony control patents in U.S. district courts — including other Patent Armory filings.
What this case signals for the call routing and health connectivity IP landscape
Pre-answer voluntary dismissals in patent cases often mask private resolutions — or signal a strategic reset by the asserting party.
Early dismissal without answer is a classic PAE reset tactic
Patent assertion entities frequently file, then voluntarily dismiss before defendants answer — particularly when defendants signal willingness to negotiate or when the plaintiff identifies a stronger venue or claim theory. The 102-day timeline here is consistent with early-stage licensing discussions. Companies operating call routing, IVR, or dispatch technology should monitor whether Patent Armory refiles or reasserts these patents elsewhere.
Five asserted patents signal a portfolio enforcement strategy
Asserting five patents across communication routing and telephony control in a single complaint is consistent with a portfolio licensing strategy designed to maximise settlement leverage. Each patent covers a distinct layer — routing logic, auction-based matching, and telephony control — making it difficult for defendants to design around the full stack without taking a licence. Companies in health connectivity and NEMT dispatch should audit their platforms against all five patents.
Patent v Modivcare — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Modivcare Solutions, LLC in the Colorado District Court on September 6, 2024, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony control systems. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Patent Armory on December 17, 2024 — 102 days after filing — before Modivcare had answered the complaint. No merits findings were made.
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based methods for matching entities — technologies relevant to Modivcare’s health connectivity and NEMT dispatch operations.
A dismissal without prejudice means Patent Armory retains the legal right to refile the same infringement claims against Modivcare in the future. No court found the patents invalid or not infringed, so Modivcare cannot rely on this dismissal as a shield against future litigation. Modivcare should assess whether a private licence or covenant not to sue was secured, as the public record does not disclose any such agreement.
Yes. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile, subject to applicable statutes of limitations under 35 U.S.C. and any tolling agreements. Because the dismissal occurred before any substantive rulings, Patent Armory faces no issue preclusion or adverse claim construction findings that would weaken a future complaint. The risk of refiling is a live concern for Modivcare and for other companies in the call routing and health connectivity sector.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissals under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) occur for several reasons: the parties may have reached a confidential licensing settlement; the plaintiff may be repositioning to refile in a different venue with a stronger claim theory; or the plaintiff may be pausing pending the outcome of parallel IPR or inter partes proceedings. The 102-day timeline here is consistent with early-stage licensing discussions, though the public record does not confirm any private resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.