Patent Armory v. Time2Market Cloud Services: Five Call Routing Patents, 53-Day Dismissal
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five patents covering intelligent call routing, telephony control, and auction-based communication matching against Time2Market Cloud Services LLC in Colorado. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice just 53 days after filing, before the defendant had answered — leaving all claims legally unresolved.
Five-Patent Call Routing Suit Dropped Before Defendant Could Answer
Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against Time2Market Cloud Services LLC on 6 September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for Colorado, asserting five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and auction-based entity matching in communication systems. The accused products broadly relate to cloud-based communication routing infrastructure.
The action was terminated on 29 October 2024 when Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Time2Market Cloud Services had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right without court approval. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendant.
At 53 days from filing to closure, the case resolved extraordinarily quickly — consistent with either a pre-answer negotiation, a strategic decision to refile in a different venue, or an assessment that the case needed refinement before proceeding. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or settlement was reached privately. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the threat of reinstatement formally remains open.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 53 days
53 days — resolved before defendant’s answer deadline, well below district court median
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Time2Market had taken neither step, Patent Armory could exit the litigation as of right. The court plays no gatekeeping role at this stage — the dismissal becomes effective upon filing.
No court approval requiredPublic record is silent on any agreed terms
The dismissal was entered without prejudice, preserving Patent Armory’s ability to refile identical claims. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar those claims — that did not occur here. Whether the parties reached a private licensing arrangement or settlement is not disclosed in the public docket. Observers should not infer either a clean walkaway or a resolved licence without additional evidence.
Claims remain liveTime2Market escapes this action — but exposure persists
Time2Market Cloud Services obtained no merits ruling, no invalidity finding, and no covenant not to sue on the public record. The without-prejudice dismissal means the five asserted patents remain enforceable and could be reasserted. Defendants in this position often seek a licence or non-suit covenant in parallel negotiations to eliminate residual risk, though the public record does not confirm whether that occurred here.
No invalidity ruling obtainedFive call routing patents remain available for further enforcement
Patent Armory’s portfolio — spanning telephony control, intelligent routing, and auction-based communication matching — was not adjudicated on the merits. All five patents retain their presumption of validity. Cloud communication and routing vendors operating in this space should treat the dismissal as a pause rather than a conclusion; the portfolio’s enforcement posture is unchanged by this outcome.
Portfolio enforcement posture intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9456086B1 and four further call routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Time2Market Cloud Services LLC | Company | Cloud-based communication and routing services providerSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carolyn Valerie Juarez | Attorney | Counsel for Time2Market Cloud Services LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Neugeboren O’Dowd P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Time2Market Cloud Services LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N. Reid Neureiter | Judge | Colorado District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice recites the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) standard verbatim, confirming the procedural basis and the absence of defendant consent or court involvement. The explicit notation that Time2Market had not answered or moved for summary judgment is legally significant — it locks in the plaintiff’s unilateral right and forecloses any argument that court approval was required. No merits determination, claim construction, or validity ruling was made; the five asserted patents exit this proceeding entirely unscathed.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent Communication Routing System
US9456086B1 (application no. US12/719827) protects an intelligent communication routing system and method — a technology domain covering the logic by which inbound calls or digital communications are dynamically matched to handling entities. The remaining four asserted patents (US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, US10237420B1) span auction-based entity matching in communication workflows and telephony control platforms with intelligent routing. Together they form a layered portfolio covering both the routing decision engine and the underlying telephony control architecture.
This portfolio is strategically significant because intelligent call and communication routing sits at the infrastructure layer of virtually every cloud contact centre, UCaaS platform, and VoIP service. Patent Armory’s multi-patent assertion strategy suggests the portfolio was assembled to cover multiple implementation pathways, making design-arounds more complex. Vendors offering cloud-based routing — including those using AI-driven or auction-based dispatch logic — face the broadest exposure, and should conduct claim-by-claim mapping against each of the five patents.
Should your team run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory portfolio?
Any organisation developing or commercialising cloud communication routing, intelligent call dispatch, VoIP control systems, or auction-based communication matching should treat this portfolio as a live risk. The five patents were asserted together, suggesting Patent Armory views them as covering overlapping aspects of the same product category. A freedom-to-operate analysis is particularly urgent for UCaaS vendors, cloud contact centre providers, and telecom infrastructure companies operating in the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map each claim of US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 against your product architecture simultaneously. Eureka surfaces prior art, identifies claim scope relative to your implementation, and flags design-around pathways — giving your legal team the analytical foundation needed before Patent Armory’s next enforcement action is filed.
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
Cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and cloud communication patents filed in U.S. district courts, including the Colorado District Court.
What this case signals for the cloud communication routing IP landscape
A five-patent pre-answer dismissal in a cloud routing dispute rarely signals the end of enforcement — it typically signals a reset.
Pre-answer dismissals often precede refiling or licensing pressure
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals filed before the defendant answers are a recognised tactical pattern among assertion entities. They allow plaintiffs to reset, negotiate, or refile in a more favourable venue without any litigation cost being imposed on them. Cloud communication vendors should monitor Patent Armory’s subsequent filings closely.
Five-patent assertion suggests a broad licensing campaign, not a single-target dispute
Asserting five patents across telephony control, intelligent routing, and auction-based matching in a single complaint is consistent with a portfolio licensing campaign. Companies building or acquiring cloud routing infrastructure should audit exposure to each of the five asserted patents independently — invalidity of one does not extinguish risk from the others.
Patent v Time2Market — key questions answered
Patent Armory, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Time2Market Cloud Services LLC in the Colorado District Court on 6 September 2024, asserting five patents covering intelligent call routing and telephony control. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on 29 October 2024 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant had answered.
Patent Armory asserted five patents: US9456086B1 (intelligent communication routing system), US10491748B1 (entity matching in communication systems), US7269253B1 (telephony control with intelligent routing), US7023979B1 (intelligent call routing platform), and US10237420B1 (communication routing method). All five remain in force following the without-prejudice dismissal.
A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not extinguish the plaintiff’s claims. Patent Armory retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Time2Market or other defendants. No merits ruling, invalidity finding, or covenant not to sue was entered on the public record, leaving the patents fully enforceable.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissals by patent assertion entities can reflect several motivations: private settlement or licensing negotiations concluded or ongoing; a strategic decision to refile in a different or more favourable venue; a need to refine the complaint or infringement contentions; or an assessment that the defendant would mount a strong early challenge. The public record does not disclose the specific reason in this case.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves all five asserted patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — fully intact with their statutory presumption of validity. No claim construction, invalidity analysis, or inter partes review was triggered by this proceeding, and the patents remain available for further licensing or litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.