Patent Armory v. Wingstop: Call Routing Patent Case Dismissed in 41 Days with Prejudice
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Patent Armory, Inc. v. Wingstop Restaurants Inc. |
| Case Number | 2:24-cv-00170 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Mar 2024 – Apr 2024 41 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Intelligent communication routing system and method, Method and system for matching entities in an auction, Telephony control system with intelligent call routing |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) that acquires and enforces telecommunications and software patent portfolios, typically generating revenue through licensing negotiations backed by litigation threats.
🛡️ Defendant
A publicly traded restaurant franchisor operating over 2,000 locations globally, known for its technology-forward customer engagement strategy, including digital ordering and communication systems.
Patents at Issue
This case involved five U.S. patents describing systems and methods for routing telephone communications intelligently based on caller data, contextual parameters, and auction-based matching logic — technology directly relevant to restaurant customer service call management and other customer communication infrastructure.
- • US9456086B1 — Intelligent communication routing system and method
- • US10491748B1 — Intelligent communication routing
- • US7269253B1 — Telephony control system with intelligent call routing
- • US7023979B1 — Telephony control system
- • US10237420B1 — Method and system for matching entities in an auction
Developing a communication platform?
Check if your call routing system might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
All claims asserted by Patent Armory against Wingstop were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Patent Armory permanently forfeited its right to re-assert these specific claims against Wingstop on these patents. Wingstop’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the company’s right to revive those claims if circumstances warrant. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
Key Legal Issues
The case was terminated by joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) before any substantive merits-based ruling. This procedural resolution means no claim construction, validity determination, or infringement finding was entered. The with-prejudice dismissal against Patent Armory is legally significant, operating as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes. The without-prejudice dismissal of Wingstop’s counterclaims is strategically notable, maintaining PTAB IPR optionality should Patent Armory assert these patents again.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in Telecommunications
This case highlights critical IP risks in intelligent call routing and telecom technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for call routing patents.
- View all 5 related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in telecom patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for call routing
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own telecommunication or call routing technology.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking telecom patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Intelligent call routing & IVR systems
5 Related Patents
In call routing/telephony space
Proactive FTO
Resolves assertions quickly
✅ Key Takeaways
With-prejudice voluntary dismissals permanently bar re-assertion against the same defendant — negotiate dismissal terms carefully.
Search related case law →Without-prejudice counterclaim dismissals preserve IPR and DJ optionality — always seek this asymmetry.
Explore precedents →41-day resolution in EDTX without any merits ruling signals PAE assertion pressure dissolved quickly upon defense engagement.
Understand EDTX strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
Five U.S. patents: US9456086B1, US10491748B1, US7269253B1, US7023979B1, and US10237420B1 — covering intelligent call routing, telephony control systems, and auction-based entity matching.
The parties filed a joint stipulation under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Patent Armory agreed to with-prejudice dismissal of all claims, permanently barring re-assertion against Wingstop on these patents.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Locator — Case 2:24-cv-00170
- USPTO Patent Center — US9456086B1
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.