DCT

1:24-cv-03258

Patent Armory Inc v. Banner Health

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03258, D. Colo., 11/22/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in Greeley, Colorado, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s call center and communication systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center routing systems that use economic and multifactorial optimization to match callers with agents, a critical function for large service-oriented organizations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 ’979, ’420, & ’086 Patent Families Priority Date
2006-03-23 ’253 Patent Application Filed
2006-04-03 ’748 Patent Family Priority Date
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2010-03-08 ’086 Patent Application Filed
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2017-10-30 ’748 Patent Application Filed
2017-12-28 ’420 Patent Application Filed
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issued
2024-11-22 Complaint 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”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, titled “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued on March 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the challenge faced by call centers in balancing competing goals: providing high-quality customer service (e.g., short wait times) while making efficient use of call center resources (e.g., agent staffing). ( ’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems are often too simplistic to optimally manage this balance. (’420 Patent, col. 2:42-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intelligent switching architecture that moves beyond simple rule-based routing. It describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization." This optimization considers not only the characteristics of the caller and agent but also formal economic factors, including the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches. (’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, first-come-first-served or basic skill-based routing to a dynamic, data-driven optimization model that applies economic principles directly to the low-level process of call routing. (’420 Patent, col. 1:19-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’420 Patent, including "exemplary method claims," but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶15). The elements of representative independent claim 1 include:
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities, representing their characteristic parameters.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with one of the second entities.
    • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of that second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, titled “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” issued on November 26, 2019. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the inefficiency of conventional call center management in handling electronic customer contact. (’748 Patent, col. 2:24-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that uses predicted characteristics of both communication sources and targets, with each having an associated "economic utility." The system determines an "optimal routing" between sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the predicted characteristics. (’748 Patent, Abstract). This solution is conceptually similar to that of the ’420 patent, framing the optimization problem in terms of maximizing utility.
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for a more holistic, economic-based optimization of call center operations, moving beyond simple one-to-one matching rules to consider the overall performance of the system. (’748 Patent, col. 4:7-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent but does not specify them. (Compl. ¶21). The elements of representative independent claim 1 include:
    • 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.
    • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their respective predicted characteristics.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, titled “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued on April 4, 2006. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to intelligent call routing within a telephony control system, addressing the general problem of efficiently connecting callers to appropriate resources in a call center environment.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification. (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringing the ’979 Patent, suggesting that Defendant's call routing systems are at issue. (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, titled “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued on September 11, 2007. (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: Like the ’979 Patent, this patent concerns intelligent call routing technology for use in telephony control systems to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of call handling.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification. (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s call routing systems, identified as "Exemplary Defendant Products," infringe the ’253 Patent. (Compl. ¶36).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, titled “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued on September 27, 2016. (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for matching entities using an auction-based framework. This approach applies economic principles to the matching process, similar to the technology described in the ’420 Patent.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification. (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems for matching communications, identified as "Exemplary Defendant Products," infringe the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim chart exhibits. (Compl. ¶15). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). This implies the accused instrumentalities are communication systems, likely used in Defendant's healthcare operations, that perform some method of routing communications (e.g., patient calls) to destinations (e.g., departments, nurses, or doctors) based on a set of defined parameters. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market context of the accused products.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not provided with the public filing. As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" implement intelligent call routing and entity matching functionalities that satisfy all elements of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The complaint incorporates the missing exhibits by reference to support these allegations but provides no specific, element-by-element mapping in the body of the pleading itself. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27, 33, 39, 48).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the terminology of the patents, such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," can be construed to cover the logic and parameters used in the accused systems. The question for the court will be whether Defendant’s system performs the specific type of economic modeling and optimization required by the claims or a more conventional form of resource allocation.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that the accused products actually perform the complex, multifactorial optimizations described in the patents. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused systems go beyond simple skill-based or rule-based routing to perform the specific utility-maximizing calculations that are a feature of the patented technology.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (from the ’420 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the scope of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether infringement requires a specific, formal economic calculation (a narrow view) or could be met by any automated system that considers general cost factors like agent idle time (a broad view).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing for general business goals such as "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which could support a broader reading that encompasses various cost-management techniques. (’420 Patent, col. 4:7-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract’s explicit use of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," terms with specific meanings in economic theory, suggests that the invention is directed toward a more formal and specific type of economic modeling, not just generic optimization. (’420 Patent, Abstract).

  • The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from the ’748 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term will be critical to distinguishing the patented method from prior art routing systems. The dispute will likely center on whether "maximizing" requires a mathematically rigorous optimization to find a global optimum for all queued calls, or if it can describe a system that simply makes a "best choice" for each individual call on a rolling basis.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification referring to optimizing for "greatest efficiency" or "lowest cost" could support a more general interpretation of "maximizing utility." (’748 Patent, col. 4:7-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "aggregate utility" suggests a calculation that considers the total utility across multiple potential pairings, rather than just a single pairing. This implies a more complex, holistic optimization process that goes beyond simple one-to-one matching, supporting a narrower construction. (’748 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 45).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge of infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). These allegations form a basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, which could support a request for enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms rooted in formal economic theory, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," be construed to read on the specific routing logic and cost-management parameters of a healthcare provider's communication system?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what technical evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, multifactorial "automated optimization" required by the claims, rather than a more conventional, and potentially non-infringing, routing algorithm?