Patent Armory v. Novo Nordisk: Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice After 107 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. filed an infringement action against Novo Nordisk A/S in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering auction-based entity matching and intelligent telephony call routing. The case closed after just 107 days when Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before Novo Nordisk had filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
Early Exit: Patent Armory Pulls Infringement Claims Before Novo Nordisk Responds
On August 19, 2025, Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Novo Nordisk A/S in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The suit asserted two patents — US9456086B1, covering a method and system for matching entities in an auction, and US7023979B1, covering a telephony control system with intelligent call routing — against the Danish pharmaceutical and biotechnology giant.
The case ended on December 4, 2025, when Patent Armory filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Novo Nordisk had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, dismissal was available as of right. Judge Gilstrap acknowledged and accepted the dismissal, ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case. No merits adjudication occurred.
At 107 days, this case resolved exceptionally quickly relative to typical Eastern District of Texas patent litigation. The pre-answer timing and each-party-bears-own-costs arrangement is consistent with either an early settlement reached outside the public record, a strategic reassessment by plaintiff, or a decision to refile on different terms. The public record is silent on the underlying commercial rationale, and the without-prejudice posture means these patent claims could resurface in future proceedings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 107 days
107 days — resolved before defendant answered; median E.D. Texas patent case runs 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice posture means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Novo Nordisk had not yet answered, Patent Armory could file the notice unilaterally. The court’s order does not grant or deny anything — it merely acknowledges the self-executing procedural act and closes the docket.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWithout prejudice: the claims are not extinguished
A dismissal without prejudice means Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Novo Nordisk in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any tolling considerations. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The public record confirms this is a without-prejudice dismissal, but gives no indication whether the parties reached any private agreement or understanding about future litigation.
Claims may be refiledNovo Nordisk exits without a merits ruling — but exposure persists
Novo Nordisk achieved closure of this specific proceeding without admitting liability or engaging substantively on the merits. The each-party-bears-own-costs arrangement means Novo Nordisk incurred its own defense fees with no recovery. Critically, the without-prejudice posture means the same patents — US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 — could be asserted again, making ongoing freedom-to-operate monitoring advisable for the company.
No merits finding; future risk remainsPre-answer exits: a common PAE litigation pattern to monitor
Cases filed by patent assertion entities and dismissed before answer — particularly in the Eastern District of Texas — often suggest exploratory enforcement campaigns, licensing pressure tactics, or rapid resolution through private negotiation. The combination of an early filing, pre-answer exit, and each-party-bears-own-costs order is consistent with these dynamics. Companies operating in auction-platform and telephony-routing technology spaces should treat these patents as active enforcement risks.
PAE enforcement patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and US7023979B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Novo Nordisk A/S | Individual | Novo Nordisk A/S — global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip 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 | Jonathan Thomas McMichael | Attorney | Counsel for Novo Nordisk A/SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Novo Nordisk A/SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely procedural: it acknowledges Patent Armory’s self-executing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and formally closes the docket. No claim construction, validity assessment, or infringement determination was made. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language and the each-party-bears-own-costs provision are the operative terms — they preserve Patent Armory’s right to refile while ensuring Novo Nordisk bears no fee-shifting risk from this particular proceeding.
US9456086B1 & US7023979B1 — Auction Entity Matching and Intelligent Call Routing
US9456086B1 covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction context — a technology domain relevant to online platforms, ad-tech, and any system that pairs buyers and sellers through algorithmic or rule-based matching. US7023979B1 covers a telephony control system with intelligent call routing, a foundational communications patent in a space that spans enterprise telephony, contact centres, and VoIP infrastructure. Both patents are U.S. utility patents with application numbers suggesting filings in the mid-2000s to early 2010s technology cycle.
The pairing of an auction-matching patent with a telephony-routing patent against a major pharmaceutical company is strategically notable: it suggests Patent Armory may be targeting enterprise-level software or customer-engagement infrastructure used across industries rather than pharma-specific technology. For companies operating digital commerce platforms, ad-auction engines, or intelligent call-routing systems, these patents represent active enforcement risk. Neither patent was challenged on validity in this proceeding, leaving their enforceability intact.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and US7023979B1?
Any company deploying auction-based matching algorithms — whether in e-commerce, programmatic advertising, procurement platforms, or digital marketplaces — should assess exposure to US9456086B1. Similarly, enterprises running intelligent call-routing infrastructure, IVR systems, or AI-driven contact-centre platforms should review US7023979B1. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice in this case means enforcement against new defendants is entirely plausible, and the Eastern District of Texas remains a plaintiff-favoured venue for future filings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of both patents against your product architecture, flag overlapping prior art, and identify any post-grant proceedings that may affect enforceability. Given that neither patent faced substantive challenge in this case, a proactive FTO analysis is the most efficient way to assess whether your technology sits within the asserted claim boundaries — before a complaint arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases: Auction Matching & Telephony Routing in E.D. Texas
Cases involving auction-matching and telephony call-routing patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including PAE-filed infringement actions with early voluntary dismissals.
What this case signals for the auction-matching and telephony IP landscape
A fast-close patent suit against a major pharma defendant raises questions about enforcement strategy and the durability of these two patents as litigation tools.
Pre-answer exits in E.D. Texas are rarely random — investigate the trigger
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses before the defendant answers in the Eastern District of Texas, it typically signals one of three things: a private licensing arrangement, a tactical reassessment of claim strength, or preparation to refile in a different venue or against different defendants. IP teams monitoring Patent Armory’s portfolio should watch for subsequent filings asserting US9456086B1 or US7023979B1.
Both asserted patents remain enforceable — run FTO now, not later
Neither patent was invalidated, disclaimed, or adjudicated in this proceeding. Any company whose products involve auction-based entity matching or intelligent telephony call routing should conduct a formal freedom-to-operate analysis against US9456086B1 and US7023979B1. The without-prejudice dismissal means enforcement activity could resume against the same or different defendants at any time.
Patent v Novo — key questions answered
Patent Armory filed an infringement action against Novo Nordisk in the Eastern District of Texas on August 19, 2025, asserting US9456086B1 and US7023979B1. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Patent Armory on December 4, 2025, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Novo Nordisk filed an answer. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
A dismissal without prejudice means Patent Armory retains the legal right to refile the same infringement claims in the future. The patents — US9456086B1 and US7023979B1 — were not invalidated or adjudicated, and remain enforceable. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar Patent Armory from asserting the same claims against Novo Nordisk.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early dismissal. The pre-answer timing and each-party-bears-own-costs arrangement is consistent with patterns seen in PAE enforcement campaigns, including private licensing resolutions, strategic reassessment of claim scope, or preparation to refile. No merits adjudication occurred, so no conclusions can be drawn about patent validity or infringement.
US9456086B1 covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction — relevant to digital marketplaces, ad-tech platforms, and e-commerce matching systems. US7023979B1 covers a telephony control system with intelligent call routing — relevant to enterprise telephony, contact-centre infrastructure, IVR systems, and VoIP platforms. Both remain valid and enforceable following the without-prejudice dismissal.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas handles one of the highest volumes of patent litigation in the United States. The district is frequently selected by patent assertion entities due to its established patent litigation procedures and historically plaintiff-friendly reputation. Cases in this court often settle or are dismissed before trial, and the early dismissal here is consistent with broader patterns observed in PAE filings in E.D. Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.