Patent Armory Inc v. Columbia Banking System Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Columbia Banking System, Inc. (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00278, D. Colo., 01/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Colorado and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and resource allocation systems infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, by moving beyond simple queuing to complex, data-driven agent or resource selection.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued Apr. 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management, which often uses static "queue/team" models for routing calls. These models can lead to "under-skilled agent," "over-skilled agent," and "static grouping" problems, all of which reduce a call center's transactional throughput and service quality (’979 Patent, col. 4:25-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by calculating an "optimum agent selection." The system receives a "communications classification" (i.e., the type of call), and a processor uses a database of "skill weights" (the importance of different skills for that call type) and "agent skill scores" (each agent's proficiency) to compute the best match and directly control the call's routing ’979 Patent, Abstract Fig. 1 This moves the optimization logic into the low-level communications architecture to reduce latency ’979 Patent, col. 59:30-41
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a move from rigid, first-in-first-out call distribution to dynamic, skill-based optimization intended to improve the efficiency and resource utilization of complex call centers ’979 Patent, col. 3:61-67

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary method claims" identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint Compl. ¶12 For illustrative purposes, independent method claim 18 is analyzed below.
• Essential elements of Claim 18:
  • Receiving a call classification.
  • Accessing a database of skill weights with respect to the call classification.
  • Accessing a database of agent skill scores.
  • Computing an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence of the skill weights and agent skill scores.
  • Directly controlling a routing of the call in dependence thereon.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued Sep. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of efficiently matching a set of resources (e.g., service agents) to a set of competing tasks (e.g., customer requests) in a way that maximizes overall economic value. Simple one-to-one matching fails to account for the "opportunity cost"—the value lost by assigning a resource to one task when it could have been more valuable for another (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first subset" of entities (e.g., customers) with a "second subset" (e.g., agents) by performing an automated optimization. The system models the entities using "multivalued scalar data" (e.g., customer needs and agent skills) and calculates a match based not only on the "economic surplus" of that specific pairing but also the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches ’086 Patent, Abstract Fig. 8 This effectively creates a real-time auction for allocating resources.
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for resource allocation that moves beyond simple best-fit criteria to a more sophisticated economic model, which is potentially more efficient in large-scale systems with many competing demands for limited resources ’086 Patent, col. 1:47-56

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint Compl. ¶18 For illustrative purposes, independent method claim 1 is analyzed below.
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first subset of entities.
  • Storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for a second subset of entities.
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for an alternate match.
  • Outputting a signal dependent on the optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim chart Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not attached to the filed complaint Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14, 18, 23

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23 Based on the subject matter of the asserted patents and the nature of the Defendant as a banking system, the accused instrumentalities are presumably customer service systems, such as telephone call centers or other platforms that match customer inquiries with bank employees or resources. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24 The complaint’s narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by practicing the claimed technology and satisfying all elements of the asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶¶ 12-14, 18-19 In the absence of the claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Based on the technology of the ’979 Patent, a central question may be whether Defendant’s call routing system performs a computation of an "optimum agent selection" as required by the claims. The analysis may focus on whether the system merely follows predefined routing rules (e.g., next available agent in a skill group) or whether it actively computes an optimal match from a pool of available agents based on weighted skills and scores, as described in the patent.
• Regarding the ’086 Patent, a primary point of contention may be whether Defendant’s resource-matching systems perform an "optimization with respect to at least an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost." The dispute may turn on whether the accused systems conduct a formal economic calculation that considers the value of assigning a resource to one task versus an alternative task, or if they employ a less complex "best-fit" algorithm that does not meet the specific economic definitions required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’979 Patent (based on illustrative Claim 18):

• The Term: "optimum agent selection"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. Its construction will determine the level of computational complexity required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on whether "optimum" implies a mathematically rigorous optimization process that maximizes a defined function, or if it can cover systems that simply select a "good" or "best available" agent based on simpler criteria.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing for various goals such as "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," suggesting flexibility in what "optimum" means ’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific "cost-utility function" and the process of selecting an agent to "maximize" this function, which may support a narrower construction requiring a formal, multi-factor optimization calculation ’979 Patent, col. 65:1-5 col. 66:30-34

For the ’086 Patent (based on illustrative Claim 1):

• The Term: "economic surplus... and an opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: These terms define the specific economic model claimed by the patent. The case may hinge on whether Defendant's systems perform calculations that align with the established economic meanings of these terms. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused matching algorithm explicitly calculates the value lost by not assigning a resource to an alternative task (opportunity cost) as part of its optimization.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a more general "cost-benefit outcome of a routing" and optimizing a "cost-utility function," which could be argued to encompass a range of economic-style calculations beyond a strict definition of surplus and opportunity cost ’086 Patent, Fig. 4 ’979 Patent, col. 66:30-34, incorporated by reference
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly recites both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," suggesting that both distinct economic concepts must be part of the accused optimization. The abstract's framing of the invention as an "auction" further supports a construction requiring a formal economic trade-off analysis ’086 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶ 21
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" of the ’086 Patent Compl. ¶ 20 The continuation of infringing activities post-filing is alleged to support a claim for ongoing and future damages, and the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional Compl. ¶¶ 21, H.i. No allegations supporting pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the Defendant’s customer service and resource allocation systems perform the specific, multi-factor "optimization" described in the patents, or do they utilize more conventional, rule-based matching algorithms that fall outside the scope of the claims? The case may depend on evidence showing the actual computational steps performed by the accused systems.
2. A second key issue will be one of definitional scope, particularly for the ’086 Patent: Can the terms "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" be construed to cover general-purpose "best match" or "highest score" calculations, or do they require a formal economic analysis that explicitly quantifies the value of forgone alternatives, as in an auction?
3. An evidentiary question will be one of intent for inducement: What specific instructions in Defendant’s product literature and website materials for the ’086 Patent are alleged to direct users to perform the claimed steps of the auction-based matching method, and does this evidence rise to the level of encouraging infringement?