Patent Armory v. Rent-A-Wreck: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed in 69 Days
Patent Armory Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Rent-A-Wreck of America Inc. in the District of New Jersey, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching systems. The case was resolved and dismissed within 69 days of filing, before any substantive merits ruling.
Five Call Routing Patents, One Rapid Dismissal in New Jersey
On August 11, 2023, Patent Armory Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Rent-A-Wreck of America Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 1:23-cv-04377). The action asserted five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and methods and systems for matching entities in an auction context.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that the court granted a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. The specific terms of the dismissal, including whether it was with or without prejudice and any conditions agreed between the parties, are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case closed on October 19, 2023 — just 69 days after filing — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction appears to have taken place. The speed of resolution is consistent with an early negotiated outcome, though the precise commercial or legal terms that drove the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 69 days
Days from filing to dismissal — resolved significantly faster than the median patent case
US9456086B1 and four further patents — intelligent call routing and telephony systems
Any company deploying intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, or auction-style entity-matching platforms — particularly in the service, rental, or franchise sectors — should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against this five-patent portfolio. The case against Rent-A-Wreck demonstrates that Patent Armory is prepared to assert these patents in active litigation, and the absence of any invalidity ruling means no prior art record has been publicly established.
Official order — verbatim text
The court order granting the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal resolves the procedural posture of the case without reaching the merits of Patent Armory's infringement claims across the five asserted patents. No findings on validity, infringement, or claim construction were issued. The specific terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
Case dismissed: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal: how it works
A joint stipulation of dismissal is a procedural mechanism by which both parties agree to terminate litigation and jointly request the court to dismiss the action. The court granted that stipulation here. The basis of termination is recorded as 'Case Dismissed.' Whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, and any conditions attached, are not disclosed in the available public record.
Court-granted joint dismissalWhat dismissal means for Patent Armory
For Patent Armory, the dismissal ends this specific action against Rent-A-Wreck without a merits ruling on infringement or validity. The five asserted patents remain in force as issued unless separately challenged. Patent Armory retains the ability to assert these patents in future actions, subject to any terms that may have been agreed but are not disclosed in the public record.
No merits adjudicationWhat dismissal means for Rent-A-Wreck
Rent-A-Wreck exits this litigation without a court ruling on whether it infringed any of the five asserted patents. No liability finding was entered. Because the specific terms of the dismissal are not in the public record, it is not possible to determine from available sources what, if any, obligations or rights Rent-A-Wreck secured as part of the resolution.
No liability finding enteredUnresolved patent validity leaves sector exposure
Because the case was dismissed without a merits ruling, the validity and enforceability of the five call routing and telephony patents were never adjudicated. Other companies operating intelligent call routing or entity-matching systems — particularly in service and rental industries — should note that these patents remain unchallenged by this litigation and could be asserted in future actions.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PATENT ARMORY INC. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rent-A-Wreck of America, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig Niaz Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for PATENT ARMORY INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing PATENT ARMORY INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Warren Keith Mabey Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Rent-A-Wreck of America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardsin PC | Law Firm | Representing Rent-A-Wreck of America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in intelligent call routing and telephony IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Patent Armory's assertion of five call routing and telephony patents against Rent-A-Wreck of America.
Patent Armory's call routing portfolio: breadth and filing continuations
Patent Armory asserted five patents spanning application filings across multiple generations, suggesting continuation or continuation-in-part filing activity in intelligent routing and telephony control. Mapping the full family tree around these five patents may reveal additional pending applications that could extend enforcement risk beyond the currently issued claims.
Multi-generation patent familyFiling trends in intelligent communication routing systems
The technology domain covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-style entity matching has attracted sustained filing activity across major telecoms, cloud communications, and CRM platform providers. Understanding the competitive filing density around the claim spaces of US9456086B1 and US10237420B1 can inform both defensive publication and design-around strategies.
Active filing landscapeRent-A-Wreck's IP position in customer-facing routing technology
Rent-A-Wreck of America operates a distributed franchise model in which inbound call routing and customer matching are core operational functions. Assessing whether Rent-A-Wreck or its technology vendors hold patents or published applications in this space can clarify whether a counterclaim or cross-licensing position was available — relevant context for similarly situated franchise operators.
Franchise operator IP exposureDesign-around opportunities near auction-based entity matching claims
The auction-matching patent (US10491748B1, App. No. 15/797070) covers a distinct sub-domain within the broader routing space — real-time or near-real-time matching of entities in an auction framework. Adjacent architectural approaches, such as rule-based or ML-driven matching without auction mechanisms, may represent white-space opportunities for product teams seeking to avoid the asserted claim scope.
Design-around white spaceSimilar call routing and telephony patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching patents in the District of New Jersey and comparable U.S. venues.
What this case signals for the call routing IP landscape
A five-patent infringement action resolved in 69 days without a merits ruling carries distinct signals for IP strategy in the telephony and routing sector.
Early dismissal without merits ruling leaves all five patents enforceable
No court ruling touched validity or infringement across US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, or US10237420B1. Companies deploying intelligent call routing or auction-style entity matching should assess exposure independently — the public record from this case provides no safe harbour.
Rapid resolution suggests litigation risk management over protracted defence
A 69-day lifecycle — from complaint to dismissal — is consistent with early-stage resolution before substantive motion practice. Defendants facing similar multi-patent assertions in New Jersey should model the cost-benefit of early engagement versus full defence, particularly where no prior art or invalidity record has been established.
PATENT v Rent-A-Wreck — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The products involved are described as an intelligent communication routing system and method, a method and system for matching entities in an auction, and a telephony control system with intelligent call routing.
The case was dismissed. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that the court granted a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. The specific terms — including whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — are not disclosed in the available public record.
No. The case was dismissed via joint stipulation before any merits ruling was issued. The court made no findings on validity, infringement, or claim construction. All five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain in force as issued.
The case lasted 69 days, filed on August 11, 2023 and closed on October 19, 2023. This is a notably short lifecycle for a multi-patent infringement action, consistent with early-stage resolution before substantive motion practice.
Patent Armory was represented by Garibian Law Offices, PC (attorney Antranig Niaz Garibian). Rent-A-Wreck of America was represented by Fish & Richardson PC (attorney Warren Keith Mabey Jr.).
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.