Patent Armory Inc v. Time2market Cloud Services LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Time2Market Cloud Services LLC (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02452, D. Colo., 09/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the District of Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud services infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for optimizing the routing of communications, such as in a call center, by using economic principles and auction-based models to match callers with agents or other resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-07	Earliest Priority Date for all five Patents-in-Suit
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2007-09-11	U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issues
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2019-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2019-11-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issues
2024-09-06	Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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 describes the challenge of efficiently managing call centers, which must balance the goal of providing high-quality customer service with the need to make efficient use of resources like agents and equipment (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Traditional methods like first-come-first-served routing are often suboptimal ('420 Patent, col. 2:48-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) through an "automated optimization." This optimization is based on calculating an "economic surplus" for a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches ('420 Patent, Abstract). The system uses data representing parameters of both the caller and the available agents to perform this matching process ('420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from static, sequential call routing to a dynamic, economic-based model that can globally optimize resource allocation in real-time. ('420 Patent, col. 4:11-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity;
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - Intelligent communication routing system and method

• Issued: November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent addresses the inefficiencies of traditional call center management and the need for more intelligent routing systems that can adapt to changing conditions and optimize for business goals (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that models both communication "sources" (e.g., callers) and "targets" (e.g., agents) based on their predicted characteristics and an assigned "economic utility." The system then determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the characteristics of the sources and destinations ('748 Patent, Abstract). This approach frames the optimization in terms of maximizing overall utility rather than the surplus-and-cost model of the ’420 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility;
  • representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets each having an economic utility; and
  • determining an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

• Issued: April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11)

Technology Synopsis

The patent title suggests a technology focused on intelligent control systems within telephony for call routing, consistent with the broader themes of the asserted patent family (Compl. ¶11).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," identifying them as "the Exemplary ’979 Patent Claims" in Exhibit 8, which is not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products," identified in the unattached Exhibit 8, infringe the patent (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

• Issued: September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12)

Technology Synopsis

The patent title is identical to the ’979 Patent, suggesting it covers related aspects of intelligent call routing technology for telephony control systems (Compl. ¶12).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," identifying them as "the Exemplary ’253 Patent Claims" in Exhibit 9, which is not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products," identified in the unattached Exhibit 9, infringe the patent (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Method and system for matching entities in an auction

• Issued: September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13)

Technology Synopsis

The patent title suggests a technology that uses auction-based principles to match entities, similar to the technology described in the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶13).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," identifying them as "the Exemplary ’086 Patent Claims" in Exhibit 10, which is not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products," identified in the unattached Exhibit 10, infringe the patent (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific features or functionality. It states that the products are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance or market positioning are made.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a narrative infringement theory or specific factual allegations detailing how Defendant’s products infringe the patents-in-suit. Instead, it incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not attached to the publicly filed complaint, stating that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). As a result, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the pleading.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendant’s cloud services perform the specific functions recited in the claims. For the ’420 Patent, this raises the question of whether the accused products perform an "automated optimization" based on the specific metrics of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." For the ’748 Patent, a similar question arises as to whether the products determine an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility."
  • Scope Questions: The patents appear rooted in the context of telephony and call center management. A potential point of contention may be whether the scope of the claims, including terms like "call" and "agent," can be construed to read on the architecture and operation of Defendant's general-purpose cloud services.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core functional step of the asserted method claim. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's accused system can be shown to perform an "optimization" that meets the specific requirements of the patent, as opposed to more generic data processing or routing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimization in general terms, noting it can be "influenced by other factors, such as training opportunities" ('420 Patent, col. 22:4-6), which may support an interpretation that is not strictly limited to the recited economic factors.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for calculating optimality, such as the one for maximizing a weighted score ('420 Patent, col. 24:47-52). A defendant may argue these specific embodiments limit the term to a particular type of structured, formula-based calculation.

• The Term: "economic surplus" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a specific metric required for the claimed "automated optimization." As it is a term from economics applied to a technical system, its precise definition will be critical for determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate the type of evidence needed to prove infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the optimization more broadly as being with respect to surplus and opportunity cost, without tying it to a single formula. The specification also equates business goals like "sales volume, profit, or the like" to factors in a cost function, suggesting "surplus" could encompass various measures of business value ('420 Patent, col. 24:35-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "economic surplus" has a specific, well-defined meaning in the context of auction and game theory, as discussed in the patent’s background ('420 Patent, col. 23:53-68), and that infringement requires proof of a calculation that aligns with that specific economic definition.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" which allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but lays the groundwork for such a claim. For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but missing) claim charts constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶44-45). This supports a theory of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's complete reliance on unattached exhibits for its infringement allegations, a central question for discovery will be whether Plaintiff can produce concrete evidence mapping the specific functionalities of Defendant’s cloud services to the detailed, multi-step optimization and economic calculation methods required by the asserted claims.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, specifically whether technical terms with economic connotations, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," can be construed broadly enough to cover the functions of a cloud services platform, or if they are limited to the specific mathematical and auction-theory contexts described in the patents.