Patent Armory v. Thrivent Investment Management: Voluntary Dismissal After 42 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against Thrivent Investment Management Inc. in the Western District of Wisconsin. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 42 days after filing — before Thrivent had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Five-patent call-routing suit dropped before defendant could respond
On April 11, 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Thrivent Investment Management Inc. in the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting five U.S. patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control systems. The asserted portfolio spans application dates across multiple filing cycles, suggesting a layered enforcement strategy built around call-handling and routing technology.
The case closed on May 23, 2024, just 42 days after filing. Plaintiff invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to dismiss the action voluntarily. Critically, the filing states that Thrivent had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, which is the procedural precondition for a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and the verdict text does not include an explicit prejudice designation.
A 42-day resolution is notably brief even by the standards of pre-answer dismissals, suggesting that settlement discussions, a licensing agreement, or a strategic reassessment may have occurred almost immediately after filing. What drove the rapid exit — whether a licensing payment, a covenant not to sue, or a purely tactical withdrawal — remains unknown from the available public record. Patent Armory’s use of a multi-patent portfolio in a single action is consistent with assertion entities seeking to maximise settlement leverage at the pre-answer stage.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 42 days
42-day lifespan — well below the median district court patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral exit before the defendant responds
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Patent Armory filed its notice before either event, making this a self-executing dismissal. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was made.
Procedural dismissal — no merits decidedThe public record is silent on whether dismissal was with or without prejudice
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar Patent Armory from re-filing the same claims against Thrivent. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the right to refile. The verdict text states the action is dismissed without prejudice — though practitioners should verify the actual docket notice, as Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals default to without prejudice unless the notice expressly states otherwise.
Refiling risk remains — monitor docketThrivent exits without a merits ruling — but exposure may not be closed
Thrivent Investment Management secured an exit from active litigation without having to answer or litigate any patent claims. However, if the dismissal is without prejudice, Patent Armory retains the ability to refile the same five-patent complaint — potentially in a different venue. Thrivent should monitor reassertion risk across the full portfolio, particularly given the breadth of patents covering call routing and entity matching.
No estoppel — reassertion possiblePre-answer exits from NPE suits rarely signal the end of enforcement activity
Patent Armory’s rapid dismissal is consistent with assertion patterns where early filing is used to initiate licensing negotiations rather than pursue full litigation. Financial services firms operating call-routing and customer-matching infrastructure should treat this dismissal as a signal to audit exposure under the five asserted patents, particularly US9456086B1 and US10237420B1, which cover more recent routing system architectures.
NPE reassertion risk — portfolio audit advisedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9456086B1 and 4 further call-routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Thrivent Investment Management Inc. | Company | Thrivent Investment Management Inc. — financial services firm named in call-routing infringement suitSearch 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 | Heather J. Kliebenstein | Attorney | Counsel for Thrivent Investment Management Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Merchant & Gould PC | Law Firm | Representing Thrivent Investment Management Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wisconsin Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly records that Thrivent had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment — the precise procedural gate that makes such a dismissal self-executing. No merits of the five asserted patents were adjudicated. The notice language is consistent with a without-prejudice exit, preserving Patent Armory’s right to refile, though the full docket should be reviewed to confirm the absence of any prejudice stipulation or side agreement.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
US9456086B1, filed under application number US12/719827, covers an intelligent communication routing system and method — technology that underpins how inbound calls or digital contacts are directed to agents or resources based on real-time logic. The portfolio extends across five patents spanning foundational telephony control claims (US7023979B1, US7269253B1) through to more recent routing and auction-based entity-matching architectures (US10237420B1, US10491748B1), suggesting a layered claim set designed to capture both legacy and modern implementations.
For financial services firms operating contact centres, lead-routing platforms, or client-matching systems, this portfolio presents material exposure. Auction-based routing — where calls or leads are matched to available agents or third-party handlers via bidding logic — is increasingly embedded in fintech and insurance distribution infrastructure. The breadth of the asserted portfolio, combined with Patent Armory’s willingness to refile, makes this a portfolio that peer institutions in financial services should monitor and assess against their own implementations.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any organisation operating intelligent call routing, IVR systems, ACD platforms, or auction-based lead distribution in the financial services, insurance, or fintech sectors should evaluate exposure under this five-patent portfolio. The claims span foundational telephony control through to modern entity-matching systems, which means standard vendor indemnities may not fully cover bespoke or heavily configured deployments. The voluntary dismissal here does not extinguish the risk — it may simply have deferred it.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map their call-routing and entity-matching implementations against each of the five asserted patents simultaneously, identifying claim-by-claim overlap and surfacing prior art or design-around options. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring alerts can also flag any new Patent Armory filings or continuations targeting the same technology space, giving your team early warning before a complaint lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar call-routing and telephony patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving intelligent call routing, IVR, and entity-matching patents filed in U.S. district courts — particularly pre-answer dismissals by assertion entities.
What this case signals for the call-routing and fintech IP landscape
A five-patent pre-answer dismissal in 42 days is a textbook NPE pressure-filing pattern — with implications beyond this single defendant.
Pre-answer dismissals in NPE cases often precede licensing resolution
When a patent assertion entity files a multi-patent complaint and then dismisses before the defendant answers, it frequently signals that a licensing discussion has concluded — or that the plaintiff has decided to regroup. Financial services firms in the call-routing and customer-matching space should treat similar filings as early-stage licensing overtures rather than full litigation commitments.
The five-patent portfolio spans multiple application generations — raising FTO complexity
With filing dates across different cycles — from US7023979B1 through to US10491748B1 — Patent Armory’s portfolio covers evolving call-routing architectures. Companies using intelligent IVR, ACD, or auction-based lead-routing systems should map their implementations against each patent individually, as design-arounds that clear older claims may not clear newer continuation-style claims.
Patent v Thrivent — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. filed a five-patent infringement action against Thrivent Investment Management Inc. in the Western District of Wisconsin on April 11, 2024. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case 42 days later under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Thrivent had answered or moved for summary judgment. No merits ruling was issued.
Patent Armory asserted five U.S. patents: US9456086B1 and US10491748B1 (intelligent communication routing), US7269253B1 and US7023979B1 (telephony control with intelligent call routing), and US10237420B1 (method and system for matching entities in an auction). The portfolio spans multiple application generations targeting call routing and entity-matching technology.
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or summary judgment motion. Unless the notice specifies otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice — meaning the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims, potentially in a different venue. The defendant receives no merits ruling and no estoppel protection.
The dismissal notice language and the procedural posture under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) are consistent with a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve Patent Armory’s right to refile. Practitioners should review the complete docket for any stipulation or agreement that might modify this default. Absent a with-prejudice designation or a covenant not to sue, reassertion risk remains live.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissals in NPE cases frequently suggest that licensing negotiations concluded — either with a payment, a covenant not to sue, or a mutual agreement — before litigation costs escalated. They may also reflect a strategic decision to refile in a more favourable venue, or to recalibrate claim construction ahead of a resubmission. The public record in this case does not disclose the reason for dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.