Patent Armory Inc v. TDM IP Holder LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: TDM IP Holder, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00969, D. Colo., 04/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in Denver, Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a telecommunications context.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to optimizing the operation of call centers by using complex, multi-factorial algorithms to route incoming communications to the most suitable agents, moving beyond simple first-in, first-out queuing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	Priority Date for ’979 and ’253 Patents
2003-03-07	Priority Date for ’420 and ’086 Patents
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issued
2006-04-03	Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2007-09-11	’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19	’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26	’748 Patent Issued
2024-04-10	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued March 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use static or simple routing rules, leading to mismatches such as routing calls to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents, which reduces transactional throughput. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for dynamically matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., a call center agent) by performing an "automated optimization." (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the best skill-based match but also economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, thereby treating the matching process like an auction. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:4-8).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move beyond simple skill-based routing by incorporating economic modeling and optimization theory directly into the low-level call-switching architecture, aiming for more globally efficient resource allocation in real-time. (’420 Patent, col. 25:9-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶15).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing their respective characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the matched second entity for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies latency and processing bottlenecks in computer-telephony systems where intelligent routing decisions are "externalized" to high-level management software, which is separate from the low-level communication hardware that performs the actual switching. (’748 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an intelligent switching architecture where the optimization algorithm is integrated into the low-level communication server system. (’748 Patent, col. 18:10-16). By using an "evaluator for valuing pairings" of requests (e.g., calls) and available partners (e.g., agents), the system can make complex, cost-benefit routing decisions in real-time without relying on a separate, high-level system, as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1. (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aims to reduce communications bandwidth and transactional load on external Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems by handling sophisticated, multi-factorial optimizations locally within the telephony server itself. (’748 Patent, col. 25:48-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A method of pairing requests.
  • Estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request.
  • Determining a set of available partners, each with at least one partner characteristic.
  • Evaluating, with an automated processor, a plurality of pairings according to an evaluator for valuing pairings of the request with respective available partners.
  • Generating a control signal selectively dependent on the evaluation.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued April 4, 2006)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system to improve call center efficiency by moving beyond simple queuing. It discloses a method of receiving a "communications classification" for a call, accessing a database of agent skill scores, and using a processor to compute an optimal agent selection based on a database of skill weights, thereby directly controlling the call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" but provides no specific feature breakdown (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued September 11, 2007)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses intelligent call routing by determining an optimal target for a communication through a "combinatorial optimization." The system stores characteristics of potential targets and, upon receiving a communication, performs an optimization that can account for factors such as a cost-benefit analysis and the predicted availability of the target to handle the communication (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued September 27, 2016)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” Issued September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes treating the matching of a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) as an auction. It discloses a method of defining parameters for each entity and then performing an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that claim charts, incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6-10 but not attached to the complaint, compare the asserted patent claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Based on the nature of the patents-in-suit, these products presumably involve telecommunications routing or resource allocation systems. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Exhibits 6-10), but these exhibits are not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). The narrative infringement theory is conclusory, stating that "[a]s set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the" asserted patents (Compl. ¶17). Without access to the claim charts, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Based on the language of the lead patents, a central point of contention may be the interpretation of economic and auction-based terminology. For the ’420 Patent, a question is whether the accused products perform an "optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "an opportunity cost," or if they employ a different, non-economic logic for routing that falls outside the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’748 Patent, a key technical question is whether the accused products contain an "evaluator for valuing pairings" that functions as required by the claim. The complaint provides no evidence to show how any specific component of the accused products performs this claimed evaluation and subsequent generation of a control signal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent:

• The Term: "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: These terms anchor the inventive concept of treating call routing as an economic auction. Their construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute may center on whether the accused system's logic, however sophisticated, can be properly characterized by these specific economic principles.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a "cost function or the like," which may support arguing that any multi-factorial weighting system that implicitly values one match over another meets these limitations (’420 Patent, col. 4:12-13).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of auctions and economic optimization, suggesting that the terms should be given their specific, technical meanings from the field of economics, which might require a more explicit calculation than a general weighting algorithm provides (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:4-8).

For the ’748 Patent:

• The Term: "evaluator for valuing pairings" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the core of the claimed method, representing the intelligent engine that makes the routing decision. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any routing logic or narrowly to require a specific type of valuation algorithm as described in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not specify a particular algorithm. This may support a construction that covers any software module or process that receives inputs about calls and agents and outputs a routing decision.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the evaluator in the context of a "cost-utility function" that considers long-term call center operation and training utility, suggesting the "evaluator" must perform a specific type of cost-benefit analysis beyond simple skill matching (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:1-13).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The stated basis is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has "actual knowledge" of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. This knowledge is alleged to arise from the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited" (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation is based on post-suit, rather than pre-suit, knowledge.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement allegations rely entirely on claim-chart exhibits that were not filed with the pleading. A primary question will be whether these bare allegations, which lack any specific factual description of the accused products' operation, are sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
• A key question of claim construction will be the scope of economic and algorithmic terms. The case will likely turn on whether abstract terms like "economic surplus" and "evaluator for valuing pairings," which are central to the asserted claims, can be construed to cover the specific functionalities of the accused products or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
• A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: The patents appear to distinguish themselves from conventional skill-based routing by incorporating principles from auction and economic theory. A key question for the court will be whether the accused systems perform these specific, claimed optimizations or if they practice more conventional routing methods that may fall outside the scope of the claims.