Patent Armory v. Oscar Health: 5-Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 40 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. brought a five-patent infringement action against health insurance technology company Oscar Health, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, asserting patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The case was dismissed with prejudice in just 40 days, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution timeline that suggests an early negotiated exit rather than substantive merits litigation.
Five-patent routing and telephony suit against Oscar Health ends at the threshold
On 13 April 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Oscar Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-02816), asserting infringement of five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The asserted patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, auction-based entity matching methods, and telephony control with intelligent call routing — technologies plausibly relevant to Oscar Health’s digital-first insurance platform and member communication infrastructure.
The case closed on 23 May 2024 — just 40 days after filing — when Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted a request to dismiss all claims against Oscar Health with prejudice and all counterclaims against Patent Armory without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice forecloses Patent Armory from re-filing the same claims against Oscar Health in any federal court, while the without-prejudice dismissal of Oscar Health’s counterclaims preserves Oscar Health’s ability to reassert those claims in future proceedings if warranted.
A 40-day resolution is unusually swift for patent infringement litigation and is consistent with a pre-answer negotiated resolution — potentially a license, covenant not to sue, or confidential settlement — rather than a merits adjudication. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement neither signals a clear winner nor an exceptional-case finding, and the public record does not disclose any financial terms. The with-prejudice dismissal of Patent Armory’s claims is the operative outcome: whatever drove the resolution, Oscar Health faces no further litigation exposure on these five patents from this plaintiff.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 40 days
40 days from filing to dismissal — well below the typical district court lifecycle of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
With prejudice dismissal bars all future claims on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Patent Armory cannot refile these infringement claims — on any of the five asserted patents — against Oscar Health in any federal court. The counterclaims dismissed without prejudice means Oscar Health’s defensive claims (e.g. invalidity) are extinguished for now but could theoretically be revived in a separate proceeding.
Claim-preclusive — no refilingPatent Armory surrenders its enforcement rights against Oscar Health
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Patent Armory permanently waives its right to assert these five patents against Oscar Health. This is a significant concession — unless a confidential license or payment was secured beforehand, which the public record does not confirm. The 40-day timeline suggests the parties reached an early resolution before substantial litigation costs accrued, but the terms, if any, remain undisclosed.
Enforcement rights extinguishedOscar Health achieves clean exit — no liability, no cost order
Oscar Health secured dismissal of all claims with prejudice and avoided any fee-shifting order. Its own counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving flexibility. Represented by Fish & Richardson — a firm with deep patent litigation experience — Oscar Health’s early engagement likely contributed to the rapid resolution. The outcome removes litigation uncertainty and any cloud over its communication routing infrastructure.
No liability, costs neutralPatent Armory’s routing portfolio still active against other targets
The with-prejudice dismissal is Oscar Health-specific: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 remain in force and enforceable against other defendants. Competitors and adjacent technology companies in health-tech, insurtech, and telecoms using intelligent call routing or auction-based entity matching should monitor this portfolio. Patent Armory’s willingness to file and resolve quickly is consistent with a licensing-first assertion strategy.
Portfolio remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and 4 further routing and telephony patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Oscar Health, Inc. | Company | Oscar Health, Inc. — digital-first health insurance technology companySearch 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 | Excylyn Janaize Hardin-Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Oscar Health, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance E. Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Oscar Health, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Oscar Health, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Oscar Health, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Oscar Health, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Katherine Polk Failla | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order grants dismissal of all plaintiff claims with prejudice and all defendant counterclaims without prejudice, with no fee award to either side. The with-prejudice standard is dispositive: it constitutes a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring Patent Armory from reasserting these five patents against Oscar Health. The asymmetric treatment — plaintiff claims out with prejudice, counterclaims out without prejudice — is a hallmark of a negotiated consent order rather than a contested ruling, suggesting the parties agreed to the precise dismissal terms. The absence of any cost or fee award is consistent with a settlement framework where each side accepted the commercial outcome without seeking litigation leverage through a fee motion.
US9456086B1 and 4 further patents — intelligent call routing and telephony control
The five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — span a technology domain covering intelligent communication routing systems, auction-based methods for matching entities (e.g. callers to agents or providers), and telephony control platforms. The application dates range from early-2000s filings (US10/385389 and US11/387305) through to mid-2010s continuations, suggesting a portfolio built through prosecution continuations over more than a decade. The technical scope plausibly encompasses contact-centre routing logic, dynamic call distribution, and marketplace-style matching — all components relevant to modern health insurance member services.
For Oscar Health, whose platform relies heavily on digital communication infrastructure and member-provider matching, these patent families represent a credible threat vector if the claims read on their call routing or provider-matching systems. Patent Armory’s portfolio strategy — asserting multiple overlapping patents covering the same product categories — is consistent with a licensing programme designed to make individual patent challenges cost-inefficient. Competitors in health-tech and insurtech operating similar member communication or provider-matching platforms should conduct FTO analysis against all five patent numbers, particularly given that the portfolio remains fully in force against third parties.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory routing portfolio?
Any company building or operating intelligent call routing, member-to-provider matching, or auction-based entity-matching systems in health-tech, insurtech, or enterprise telephony should treat these five patents as active risk. Patent Armory’s successful enforcement action — resolved in just 40 days — demonstrates a credible and efficient assertion capability. R&D and product teams deploying contact-centre platforms, dynamic call distribution, or marketplace-matching logic should specifically map their architectures against the claims of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 before scaling or releasing new features.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against all five patent families simultaneously, surfacing relevant independent claims, prosecution history, and prior art. Eureka’s landscape tools also identify continuation applications and related family members that may not be immediately visible from the asserted numbers, ensuring your clearance analysis covers the full enforcement footprint of this portfolio — not just the five patents asserted in this action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar intelligent call routing and PAE patent cases in federal district courts
Cases involving patent assertion entities targeting intelligent call routing and telephony control patents in the Southern District of New York and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the health-tech and call-routing IP landscape
A 40-day dismissal with prejudice in a five-patent case reveals strategic dynamics worth tracking across the insurtech and telephony sectors.
Rapid dismissals often mask confidential licensing outcomes
When a patent assertion entity files suit and achieves a with-prejudice dismissal inside 40 days with mutual cost-bearing, the most likely explanation is a pre-answer license or covenant not to sue. Companies in similar technology segments — health-tech platforms, insurtech, telecoms — should treat this pattern as a signal that Patent Armory’s routing portfolio is being actively monetised.
Five asserted patents create a broad enforcement footprint across routing technology
Patent Armory asserted patents spanning intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — a portfolio breadth that could cover a wide range of contact-centre, member-services, and provider-matching systems. Any company operating in these spaces should assess whether their architecture intersects with these patent families before receiving a demand letter.
Patent v Oscar — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. sued Oscar Health, Inc. in the Southern District of New York on 13 April 2024, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony systems. The case was dismissed on 23 May 2024 — 40 days after filing — with all claims against Oscar Health dismissed with prejudice and all counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, claim-preclusive outcome. Patent Armory cannot refile any of the five asserted patent infringement claims against Oscar Health in any federal court. The res judicata effect is permanent. However, the five patents remain valid and enforceable against other defendants — the restriction applies only to Oscar Health as the named defendant in this action.
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1 (application US12/719827), US10491748B1 (US15/797070), US7269253B1 (US11/387305), US7023979B1 (US10/385389), and US10237420B1 (US15/856729). The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, auction-based entity matching methods, and telephony control with intelligent call routing.
The 40-day resolution — before any substantive court activity would typically occur — is consistent with a pre-answer negotiated resolution. This may reflect a confidential license agreement, a covenant not to sue, or a settlement. The mutual cost-bearing order and the asymmetric prejudice treatment (plaintiff claims with prejudice, counterclaims without) are hallmarks of a consent order negotiated between the parties rather than a contested ruling.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal is defendant-specific: it bars Patent Armory from asserting these five patents against Oscar Health only. All five patents remain in force and fully enforceable against third parties. Companies operating intelligent call routing, telephony control, or auction-based entity matching platforms should treat the portfolio as an active enforcement risk and consider conducting FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.