Patent Armory v. Which Wich: 5-Patent Routing Suit Dismissed After 1 Day
Patent Armory Inc filed a five-patent infringement action against sandwich chain Which Wich Inc in the Northern District of Texas, asserting patents covering intelligent communication routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice just one day after filing — before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
A five-patent infringement claim that lasted less than 24 hours
On June 17, 2024, Patent Armory Inc filed suit against Which Wich Inc — operator of a national sandwich franchise — in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Jane J. Boyle. The complaint asserted five US patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1, all directed at intelligent communication routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity-matching methods. The accused products are described as an intelligent communication routing system, a method and system for matching entities in an auction, and a telephony control system with intelligent call routing.
One day after filing — on June 18, 2024 — Patent Armory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating the action without prejudice. Because Which Wich had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right, requiring no court order. The public record does not specify whether a settlement or licensing agreement preceded or accompanied this dismissal.
A one-day lifecycle is consistent with pre-suit licensing pressure tactics, where a complaint is filed to establish leverage and then withdrawn once initial contact is made or a licensing discussion commences. The without-prejudice designation preserves Patent Armory’s right to re-file identical or related claims against Which Wich or any other party at a later date. What drove the immediate withdrawal — settlement, licensing, strategic recalibration, or another factor — remains unknown from the publicly available record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1 days
Case closed in 1 day — among the shortest-lived district court filings on record
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Which Wich had done neither, Patent Armory could exit the litigation unilaterally. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing the notice — no judicial approval is required.
Pre-answer voluntary exitThe record specifies ‘without prejudice’ — but the distinction matters
The verdict text explicitly states dismissal without prejudice, meaning Patent Armory retains the right to re-file claims on the same five patents against Which Wich or other defendants. A with-prejudice dismissal would have barred re-filing. The Basis of Termination lists only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying prejudice status, but the verdict text controls: this dismissal does not extinguish future enforcement rights.
Re-filing right preservedWhich Wich escapes judgment — but exposure remains open
Which Wich Inc obtains a clean exit from this specific action with no adverse judgment, no injunction, and no cost award. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the defendant cannot treat this as a final resolution. The five asserted patents remain valid and enforceable, and Patent Armory may re-assert them. Which Wich should monitor Patent Armory’s portfolio and any licensing correspondence closely.
No judgment; risk persistsOne-day dismissals signal licensing pressure, not litigation defeat
Cases dismissed within 24 hours of filing are typically consistent with a licensing or settlement approach rather than full-scale litigation. Patent Armory’s counsel — Garteiser Honea PC and Rabicoff Law LLC — have active litigation dockets, suggesting this filing pattern may recur across other targets in the communication routing and telephony space. Companies deploying call routing, IVR, or entity-matching systems in customer service infrastructure should treat this case as a market signal.
Licensing pressure tactic likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Patent Armory Inc | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, US10237420Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Which Wich Inc | Company | Which Wich Inc — national sandwich franchise chain, headquartered in TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Patent Armory IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Casper | Attorney | Counsel for Which Wich IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darin M. Klemchuk | Attorney | Counsel for Which Wich IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mandi M Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for Which Wich IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Klemchuk PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Which Wich IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jane J Boyle | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) expressly and confirms Which Wich had not yet answered — meaning the withdrawal was unconditional and took effect without judicial discretion. The ‘without prejudice’ designation in the verdict text is the operative language: it signals that Patent Armory made a deliberate choice to preserve future enforcement rights rather than close the matter permanently. No merits ruling was issued, no claim construction occurred, and no invalidity findings were made. The five asserted patents survive this proceeding fully intact.
US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, US10237420 — Intelligent Routing Portfolio
The five asserted patents span two decades of communication routing innovation. US7023979 and US7269253, arising from early-2000s application filings, cover foundational telephony control and intelligent call routing architectures. US9456086 and US10491748 represent a later generation of intelligent communication routing systems, with application dates in the 2010s. US10237420 covers a method and system for matching entities in an auction — a claim set that may relate to routing decisions made via competitive or priority-based selection logic. Together they form a layered portfolio targeting the infrastructure layer of customer-facing communication systems.
For franchise operators, hospitality brands, and any enterprise deploying IVR, ACD, or intelligent call distribution systems, this patent cluster represents material enforcement risk. Patent Armory’s decision to assert all five patents simultaneously against a single restaurant-sector defendant suggests a deliberate bundling strategy designed to maximise licensing pressure. The breadth of the portfolio — from telephony hardware control to auction-based routing logic — means that modern cloud contact centre platforms and customer engagement systems could fall within scope, even if the underlying technology has evolved significantly since the earliest priority dates.
Should your platform run an FTO against Patent Armory’s routing portfolio?
Any product team building or deploying intelligent call routing, IVR systems, contact centre infrastructure, or entity-matching logic for customer engagement should treat this five-patent cluster as a live FTO priority. The without-prejudice dismissal means Patent Armory can and may re-assert these patents — against Which Wich or any other operator in the franchise, hospitality, or enterprise communications space. The combination of a Texas filing venue and experienced plaintiff counsel reinforces that this is an active enforcement programme, not a one-off filing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to run structured clearance searches across all five patent numbers simultaneously, mapping claim language to your specific routing architecture. Eureka can surface file-history estoppel, identify relevant prior art that may limit claim scope, and flag continuation applications that could extend the enforcement window. For companies that have already received licensing correspondence referencing this portfolio, Eureka’s litigation timeline tracking can provide real-time alerts if Patent Armory re-files against you or a competitor.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9456086B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar communication routing patent cases in Texas federal courts
Browse related patent infringement actions asserting communication routing and telephony patents in the Northern District of Texas and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the communication routing IP landscape
A five-patent complaint filed and withdrawn in 24 hours suggests a deliberate pre-suit licensing strategy — with broader sector implications.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps all five patents live as enforcement tools
Patent Armory’s portfolio — spanning intelligent routing, telephony control, and auction-based entity matching — remains fully enforceable. No claim was invalidated, no license was publicly disclosed. Any company using similar routing infrastructure should assess exposure against US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, and US10237420.
Franchise and hospitality tech platforms are plausible next targets
Which Wich is one of many franchise operators deploying customer communication routing systems. The choice of defendant in the Northern District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-friendly venue — and the one-day withdrawal suggests targeted outreach. Similar franchise chains and QSR operators using IVR or intelligent call routing should evaluate their FTO position against this patent cluster.
Patent v Which — key questions answered
Patent Armory Inc filed a five-patent infringement action against Which Wich Inc in the Northern District of Texas on June 17, 2024, and voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice the following day under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued. The five asserted patents cover intelligent communication routing and telephony control systems.
Patent Armory asserted US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1. These patents collectively cover intelligent communication routing systems, telephony control with intelligent call routing, and a method and system for matching entities in an auction.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the case ended without any judgment on the merits, and Patent Armory retains the right to re-file the same claims at a future date. Which Wich received no adverse judgment but cannot treat this as a final resolution — the five asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against it or any other party.
A one-day lifecycle is consistent with pre-suit licensing pressure strategies, where a complaint is filed to establish urgency and then withdrawn once the defendant acknowledges the patents or enters licensing discussions. It may also reflect a strategic recalibration. The public record does not confirm whether a settlement or licensing agreement was reached.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Patent Armory may re-assert US9456086, US10491748, US7269253, US7023979, and US10237420 against Which Wich or any other defendant at any time, subject to applicable statutes of limitation and patent expiry. Companies in the franchise, hospitality, and enterprise communications sectors should monitor this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.