Patent Armory Inc v. Seek Thermal Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc (Canada)
  • Defendant: Seek Thermal Inc (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips Goldman McLaughlin & Hall PA; Rabicoff Law
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00498, D. Del., 07/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated there and has an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for optimizing communications in environments like call centers by using algorithms to match callers with agents based on skills, costs, and other factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued March 19, 2019 (Compl. ¶9).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems, which often rely on simple rules like "first-come-first-served" or "longest-idle-agent" (’420 Patent, col. 2:44-52). These static approaches are suboptimal when agents possess varying skills, leading to inefficient matching of callers to agents (’420 Patent, col. 4:11-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that matches a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with an optimal "second entity" (e.g., an agent) from a pool of available candidates (’420 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by defining parameters for both entities and performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from simple, rule-based routing to a dynamic, economic model for resource allocation in communication networks, designed to optimize for global efficiency rather than just immediate call handling (’420 Patent, col. 18:8-24).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’420 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019 (Compl. ¶10).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses transactional throughput issues in call centers stemming from static agent groupings and skill assignments (’748 Patent, col. 4:30-34). Problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents create inefficiencies and reduce the overall performance of the call center (’748 Patent, col. 4:5-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). It does this by representing and analyzing the "predicted characteristics" of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) to find the best match based on a cost-utility function that can factor in long-term goals like agent training (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 23:41-24:49).
  • Technical Importance: The system architecture integrates this intelligent routing logic into the low-level communications server, allowing for real-time, inferential target resolution without the latency associated with querying a separate, high-level management system (’748 Patent, col. 18:8-24).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’748 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶26).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. The system receives a communication classification, accesses a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an optimal agent selection, which is then used to control call routing (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify the asserted claims, referring to "Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: The technology is a communications system for routing calls based on an "optimal" match between call characteristics and agent skills. The system determines this match through a combinatorial optimization that considers a plurality of potential targets and may include a cost-benefit analysis (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify the asserted claims, referring to "Exemplary '253 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

• Patent Identification: 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 discloses a method for matching a first entity with a second entity using an auction-based framework. The system performs an automated optimization considering the "economic surplus" of a potential match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making one entity unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify the asserted claims, referring to "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused instrumentality by name, referring to them generally as "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 states that the specific products and their functions are identified in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint document (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations for all five patents-in-suit are contained within external exhibits that were incorporated by reference but not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27, ¶35-36, ¶41-42, ¶50-51). The narrative allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary...Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50).

The complaint's reliance on external, non-provided exhibits for its infringement allegations precludes a detailed analysis of potential points of technical or legal contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted from any of the patents-in-suit. This prevents an analysis of key claim terms that may be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations state that Defendant distributes "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, ¶33, ¶48). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least since the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶25, ¶34, ¶49).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶32-33, ¶47-48). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness.

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

The complaint's reliance on external exhibits for all substantive technical and infringement details raises foundational questions for the case.

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement theory for all five patents rests entirely on external exhibits not filed with the pleading. A threshold question for the court will be whether the factual allegations in these exhibits, once produced, are sufficient to plausibly map the elements of the asserted claims onto the accused products under the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
• A key technical question will be one of applicability: The patents-in-suit are directed to call-center routing and auction-based matching systems. A central technical dispute will likely concern whether the accused products, once identified and their functionality detailed, operate in a manner that falls within the scope of this claimed technology, particularly concerning the performance of "multifactorial optimization" and "cost-utility" functions as described in the patents.