Patent Armory v. United Healthcare Services: Five Call Routing Patents, Dismissed in 55 Days
Patent Armory, Inc. asserted five US patents covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching against United Healthcare Services, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice just 55 days after filing, before the defendant filed any responsive pleading.
Five-Patent Call Routing Suit Against UnitedHealth Ends at 55 Days
On 12 April 2024, Patent Armory, Inc. filed suit against United Healthcare Services, Inc. in the Western District of Texas — Case No. 6:24-cv-00190 — before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint alleged infringement of five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents collectively cover intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity-matching methods — technologies directly relevant to large enterprise call centre and member services operations.
On 6 June 2024, just 55 days after filing, Patent Armory dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was filed unilaterally, before United Healthcare Services had answered the complaint or filed any motion for summary judgment. The parties agreed that each would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, meaning no monetary award was entered in favour of either side.
The 55-day timeline is notably short even by pre-answer dismissal standards, suggesting the resolution — whether through private settlement, licensing agreement, or strategic withdrawal — was reached quickly after filing. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Patent Armory is permanently barred from asserting these same claims against United Healthcare on the same patents. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing payment or other commercial arrangement was reached between the parties.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 55 days
55 days — resolved before defendant answered or moved for summary judgment
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal: what ‘with prejudice’ locks in
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Patent Armory exercised that right. Critically, the dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ meaning the claims are extinguished permanently — Patent Armory cannot re-file the same infringement claims against United Healthcare on these five patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingPatent Armory’s claims are permanently extinguished
A with-prejudice dismissal is the functional equivalent of a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Patent Armory surrendered its right to pursue these specific infringement claims against United Healthcare. Whether the plaintiff received any compensation — such as a licensing payment or settlement — is not disclosed in the public record. The each-party-bears-own-costs agreement also means no fee recovery was obtained.
Claims cannot be revivedUnited Healthcare exits without prejudgment exposure
United Healthcare Services secured a permanent end to this litigation without filing a single responsive pleading. The with-prejudice dismissal shields the company from re-litigation of the same claims on these five patents. The each-party-bears-costs structure confirms that no fee award was entered, so United Healthcare carries no adjudicated liability. The speed of resolution — 55 days — may indicate early negotiations resolved the matter before formal discovery began.
No liability adjudicatedPre-answer resolution limits public precedent on call routing patents
Because the case terminated before any substantive court ruling — no claim construction, no invalidity analysis — the five asserted patents remain unchallenged in this forum. Other companies in the healthcare technology and call centre routing space that may face similar assertions from Patent Armory cannot rely on any invalidity or non-infringement finding from this proceeding. The patents’ enforceability is unchanged from a public-record perspective.
Patents remain unchallengedFull 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 | United Healthcare Services, Inc. | Company | United Healthcare Services, Inc. — major US health insurance and managed care services 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly, confirming that no responsive pleading had been filed, making the dismissal self-executing — no judicial approval was required. The with-prejudice designation is the critical operative term: it elevates what would otherwise be a procedural exit into a permanent bar. The each-party-bears-costs clause is standard in pre-answer dismissals and does not itself signal a merits outcome, though it confirms no damages or fee award was entered in favour of either side.
US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
US9456086B1 (App. No. 12/719827) is the lead patent asserted in this action, directed to intelligent communication routing — a technology that dynamically matches inbound callers to optimal agents or service queues. The four co-asserted patents (US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, US10237420B1) extend coverage across telephony control architectures and auction-style entity-matching methods. The application dates span different generations of routing technology, suggesting layered coverage across legacy and modern contact centre infrastructure.
For large enterprise health insurers like United Healthcare — which operates one of the highest call volumes in the US health services sector — intelligent call routing is a core operational function. Patent Armory’s multi-patent bundle targeting this function signals that companies with large member services or claims call centres are potential assertion targets. The patents’ survival through this litigation without any invalidity challenge means the enforceability landscape is unchanged and the portfolio remains a credible licensing instrument.
Should you run an FTO against US9456086B1 and the Patent Armory call routing portfolio?
Any enterprise deploying intelligent call routing, ACD systems, telephony control platforms, or auction-based agent-matching logic in a contact centre environment should assess freedom-to-operate against this five-patent portfolio. The asserted patents span multiple application dates and claim families, meaning design-arounds may need to address more than one claim architecture. Health insurers, managed care organisations, and SaaS telephony vendors are among the most exposed categories given the nature of the accused technology.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five asserted patent claim sets against your product architecture, identify prior art that was not raised in this litigation, and flag claim language that may present non-infringement arguments. Because no claim construction order or invalidity ruling issued in this case, Eureka’s analysis provides the first structured view of the claim scope risk that the public record leaves open.
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 the Western District of Texas
Cases involving intelligent call routing, telephony control, and entity-matching patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the call routing and health-tech IP landscape
A 55-day pre-answer dismissal with prejudice against a major health insurer raises pointed questions about patent licensing strategy and assertion risk.
Pre-answer resolution leaves the asserted patents legally intact
No court ruled on validity, claim scope, or infringement. All five patents — US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — remain enforceable and could be asserted against other defendants. Companies using similar call routing and telephony systems should treat these patents as live enforcement risk.
Judge Albright’s docket signals fast-moving pre-answer dynamics
The Western District of Texas under Judge Albright is known for an active patent docket and plaintiff-friendly scheduling. The 55-day resolution before any responsive pleading is consistent with a pattern where defendants in this court often negotiate quickly to avoid discovery obligations and Markman proceedings.
Patent v United — key questions answered
Patent Armory asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. The patents cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with call routing logic, and auction-based entity-matching methods for directing communications.
Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 6 June 2024, 55 days after filing. United Healthcare had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment, so no court order was needed. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or other commercial arrangement preceded the dismissal.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently extinguishes Patent Armory’s infringement claims against United Healthcare on these five patents. Patent Armory is barred from re-filing the same claims in any US court. The dismissal has the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.
No. The dismissal notice expressly states that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee award or damages judgment was entered. This each-party-bears-costs structure is standard in pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not by itself indicate which party, if any, made a payment.
No. Because the case terminated before any substantive ruling — no claim construction, no invalidity analysis, and no summary judgment — the five asserted patents emerge legally intact. Their validity and enforceability are unchanged by this proceeding, and the patents may be asserted against other defendants in future litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.