Patent Armory Inc v. BruMate Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Case: Patent Armory Inc. v. Brumate, Inc.
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Brumate, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02572, D. Colo., 09/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a telecommunications context.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications networks, particularly call centers, by using algorithms to match incoming tasks (e.g., calls) with available resources (e.g., agents) based on skills, costs, and other factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings 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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers that use simple "first-come-first-served" or basic skill-based routing, which fails to optimize the matching of callers to agents in a way that maximizes overall value or efficiency (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 2:26-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) to a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as an auction. It performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the direct value of a potential match (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost"—the value lost by making an agent unavailable for a potentially more valuable future match ('420' Patent, Abstract; col. 21:5-13). This allows the system to make more sophisticated routing decisions that balance immediate needs with long-term call center performance ('420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond static routing rules to a dynamic, economic model for resource allocation in real-time communications environments.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" of the '420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and 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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of routing communications to an optimal target when simple identifiers like a phone number are insufficient. It notes that traditional systems are not equipped to handle routing based on high-level, contextually interpreted definitions of a target ('748' Patent, col. 18:6-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that routes communications by representing both sources (e.g., callers) and potential targets (e.g., agents) as sets of "predicted characteristics." It then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" that takes into account these respective characteristics ('748 Patent, Abstract). This allows for routing based on an inferential description of a target (e.g., "the best agent for this problem") rather than a concrete address. The system is designed to perform this optimization at a low level within the communications management architecture to improve real-time performance ('748 Patent, col. 18:24-34).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables more intelligent and flexible real-time routing decisions by moving the optimization logic into the core communications system itself, rather than relying on slower, high-level software.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A communications routing system, comprising:
  • a memory storing a profile representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility, and a profile representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility; and
  • a processor, configured to determine 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 of the communications source and communications destination represented by linkages.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system with an input for receiving a "communications classification" and a database of agent skills. A processor computes an optimum agent selection based on the classification and skills, and then directly controls the routing of the call (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, also describes an intelligent call routing system. It claims a method where an optimum target is determined for a communication based on a "combinatorial optimization" of available targets and their characteristics, with the routing performed within a common operating environment (’253 Patent, col. 86:10-21).
• Asserted Claims: Unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by performing an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for an alternate match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint's narrative alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Due to the lack of specific factual allegations or claim charts, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible from the face of the complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff proffers to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific, algorithm-based functions required by the claims, such as calculating "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility."
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the abstract, functional language used in the claims. A key question for the court will be whether the operations of the accused products can be mapped to claim elements like "performing an automated optimization" ('420 Patent) or "maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent).

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 invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely center on whether the accused system performs a process that meets the definition of an "optimization" that considers both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not defined by a specific algorithm, leaving its scope open to interpretation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in broad, functional terms, suggesting it is not limited to a specific mathematical formula but rather encompasses any process that balances competing goals to achieve an efficient outcome (e.g., ’420 Patent, col. 21:5-13, col. 22:4-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly grounds the invention in the context of a call center matching callers to agents ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-35, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction limiting the term to optimizations performed specifically within such telecommunications routing environments.
• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the goal of the claimed routing system. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products perform a process that can be characterized as maximizing a utility function aggregated from the characteristics of both communication sources and targets.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and claims define "utility" broadly as "economic utility," suggesting any calculable value or benefit could satisfy this limitation ('748 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). The specification also refers to a "consolidated cost function" that can incorporate a "variety of factors" ('748 Patent, col. 25:54-58), supporting a broad reading.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of utility functions that include specific factors like agent cost, training cost, anticipated outcome, and opportunity cost ('748 Patent, col. 23:24-67). A defendant may argue these examples limit the scope of "aggregate utility" to functions that consider these or similar specific economic parameters, rather than any generic performance metric.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the '748 and '086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant has knowledge of infringement at least since the service of the complaint and intentionally induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24-25; ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful." The allegations of knowledge supporting indirect infringement are based on post-suit conduct, namely the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's high level of generality, a key question is what specific factual evidence Plaintiff will be able to produce to show that Defendant’s unnamed products actually perform the complex, algorithm-driven optimization and utility-maximization steps recited in the patent claims.
• A central legal question will be one of claim scope and patent eligibility: The asserted claims use broad, functional language (e.g., "automated optimization," "maximizing an aggregate utility"). The case will likely involve significant disputes over the proper construction of these terms and whether they are directed to a patent-eligible application of a mathematical concept or an abstract idea.