Patent Armory Inc v. Modivcare Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Modivcare Solutions, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02464, D. Colo., 09/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has allegedly suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities, technologies often associated with telecommunications call centers.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing the allocation of resources, such as call center agents to incoming calls, by using economic principles and multi-factor analysis to improve efficiency beyond simple 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

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 Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiencies in traditional call center management, where routing callers to agents based on simple rules like "first-come-first-served" or basic skill matching fails to optimize for complex variables, leading to suboptimal use of resources and inconsistent service quality (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 2:26-42).
• 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) by performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the characteristics of the entities but also the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). This creates a dynamic, market-like mechanism for resource allocation instead of a static queuing system (’420 Patent, col. 18:43-52).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a communications system to move beyond simple skill-based routing and incorporate economic principles to achieve a more globally efficient allocation of resources in real-time (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶15). The following analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent requires:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity 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 second entities, representing their characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization regarding an economic surplus of a match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims, including dependent claims, at a later time (Compl. ¶15).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of routing communications in environments like call centers, where simple, predetermined rules are inefficient for handling variations in transaction types and agent skills, leading to problems like connecting callers to under-skilled or over-skilled agents (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 4:1-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an "optimal routing" by maximizing an "aggregate utility," effectively treating the routing decision as an economic optimization problem (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can factor in training value alongside short-term efficiency, as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1, to optimize for long-term call center operation (’748 Patent, col. 36:29-34; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for making intelligent, context-aware routing decisions that can balance immediate transactional efficiency with longer-term strategic goals, such as agent training and development (’748 Patent, col. 27:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). The following analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent requires:
  • A communications routing system for representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that intelligently routes calls by analyzing characteristics of the call and available agents to determine an optimal match. The system can consider factors beyond simple queuing, such as agent skills and training needs, to optimize call center operations for both short-term and long-term goals (’979 Patent, col. 18:9-24).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’979 Patent and similarly discloses a system for intelligent call routing. It focuses on using a cost-utility function to select an agent, which can be optimized for either short-term efficiency (e.g., when a call center is near capacity) or long-term goals like agent training (’253 Patent, col. 1:49-65; Fig. 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a system that matches entities by conducting a virtual auction. The system considers both economic factors (e.g., cost) and non-economic factors (e.g., the optimality of a profile match) to determine the best pairing, thereby moving beyond simple rule-based allocation to a more dynamic, market-driven approach (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:52-67).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but provides no description of their specific technical features, functions, or market positioning (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference external claim charts (Exhibits 6-10), which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a narrative infringement theory or any specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim elements. Instead, it incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27, ¶32-33, ¶38-39, ¶47-48). As a result, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided document.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be whether terms rooted in the patents' telecommunications and call center context (e.g., "call," "agent," "auction," "call router") can be construed to read on the defendant's alleged systems and methods, which are publicly known to relate to non-emergency medical transportation and logistics. For example, a question for the court may be whether a system for dispatching vehicles to members constitutes an "auction" for matching a "first entity" with a "second entity" as required by the ’420 and ’086 Patents.
• Technical Questions: The patents describe specific optimizations based on "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "economic utility" (’420 Patent, Abstract; ’748 Patent, Abstract). A key technical question will be what evidence the Plaintiff presents to demonstrate that the accused products perform these specific economic calculations, as opposed to more general logistical optimizations that do not map onto the claimed methods.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent:

• The Term: "auction"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted method, which is framed as a system for "matching entities in an auction." The definition of "auction" will be critical to determining whether the patent's scope is limited to systems involving competitive bidding or can be read more broadly to cover any system that allocates resources among competing entities.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention without using traditional bidding language, referring instead to an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost," which could support an argument that any such optimization process constitutes an "auction" (’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly discusses the invention in the context of routing telephone calls in a call center, a specific environment that may suggest a narrower application of the term (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-42). The patent also describes embodiments where agents can "engage in an auction; that is, agents bid for a caller" (’420 Patent, col. 21:50-52), suggesting a more traditional, competitive process.

For the ’748 Patent:

• The Term: "economic utility"
• Context and Importance: The claim requires representing both communication sources and targets as having an "economic utility" and maximizing an "aggregate utility." The construction of this term will determine whether the accused system must perform a specific type of economic calculation or whether any value-based metric can satisfy the limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a quantitative economic assessment, not just a logical or skill-based routing decision.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that "economic utility" can encompass a wide range of factors, including non-monetary goals like "customer satisfaction" which must be "normalized into economic terms," potentially broadening the term beyond direct financial metrics (’748 Patent, col. 24:37-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides formulas that treat "utility" alongside explicit "cost factors," such as agent salary and training costs, suggesting that "economic utility" is intended to be part of a formal, quantifiable cost-benefit analysis rather than a generic measure of suitability (’748 Patent, col. 23:54-62, col. 24:1-50).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant allegedly distributing "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 does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts ... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," which could form the basis for alleging post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).

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

Based on the complaint and the patents-in-suit, the resolution of this case may turn on the following key questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms such as "auction" and "call center," which are grounded in the patents' telecommunications context, be construed broadly enough to cover the alleged systems and methods used for coordinating non-emergency medical transportation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional mapping: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that the accused products perform the specific, multi-factor economic optimizations (e.g., calculating "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," or "economic utility") required by the asserted claims, as opposed to general-purpose logistical scheduling?