Patent Armory Inc v. Telegram LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Telegram LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00840, D. Del., 08/04/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in the state and having an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe three U.S. patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to advanced routing systems, primarily described in the context of call centers, that use economic and optimization principles to match communication sources (e.g., callers) with targets (e.g., agents).
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of an extended family with a long prosecution history tracing back to provisional applications filed in 2003 and 2006, suggesting the technology has been subject to examination over a significant period. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

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's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple routing logic like "first-come-first-served" or "longest-idle-agent" ('420 Patent, col. 2:42-3:14). These systems struggle to balance customer service quality with efficient resource use and often lead to mismatches, such as routing complex calls to "under-skilled" agents or simple calls to "over-skilled" agents ('420 Patent, col. 4:35-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated system that treats the matching of a caller to an agent as an auction-like process ('420 Patent, Abstract). Instead of simple queuing, the system performs an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches ('420 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:9-24). Figure 1 illustrates a process flow that optimizes a "cost-utility function" to select an agent. ('420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, economically-driven optimization model designed to improve overall call center efficiency. ('420 Patent, col. 18:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but reserves the right to assert one or more claims (Compl. ¶13). For illustrative purposes, independent claim 1 is analyzed below.
• Independent Claim 1 of the '420 Patent includes these essential elements:
  • Estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request.
  • Determining a set of available partners, each with at least one respective partner characteristic.
  • Evaluating, with an automated processor, a plurality of pairings of the request with different available partners according to an evaluator for valuing the pairings.
  • The evaluator comprises a probabilistic function, a hierarchical Markov model, Bayesian logic, or a neural network, dependent on the characteristics of the requestor and the partner.
  • Generating a control signal based on the evaluation.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '748 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the '420 Patent: the inefficiencies and suboptimal matching inherent in traditional call center routing systems. (’748 Patent, col. 2:5-3:34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a communications routing system that represents the "predicted characteristics" of both communication sources and targets, with each having an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" for the pairings ('748 Patent, Abstract). This method moves beyond simple address-based routing to an inferential system that calculates the best outcome based on a variety of weighted factors. ('748 Patent, col. 18:9-24).
• Technical Importance: This method allows for a more granular and context-aware routing decision, aiming to optimize the overall economic performance of the communication system rather than just minimizing wait times. ('748 Patent, col. 27:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶19). For illustrative purposes, independent claim 1 is analyzed below.
• Independent Claim 1 of the '748 Patent includes these essential elements:
  • Receiving information representing a plurality of communications concurrently queued for routing, each involving a respective task.
  • Identifying a plurality of communication targets available for handling a respective communication.
  • Determining a latency for each target with respect to a task.
  • Estimating an economic value for routing each communication to alternate targets, dependent on the latency, consumption of limited capacity, and a communication-content dependent benefit.
  • Selecting an optimal routing based on a comparison of the estimated economic values.
  • Communicating the optimal routing to a routing device.

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

Technology Synopsis

As a parent patent to the '420 Patent, the '086 Patent addresses the same problem of inefficient call center routing. It discloses a solution where incoming calls ("first entity") are matched with available agents ("second entities") through an automated optimization that considers the economic surplus and opportunity cost of each potential pairing. ('086 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify which of the '086 Patent's claims are asserted (Compl. ¶28). The patent contains independent claims 1, 10, and 19.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify the products or their specific features, instead incorporating by reference a non-provided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 33).

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 purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits attached to the complaint; however, these exhibits were not publicly filed. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15, 19, 24, 28, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. The infringement allegations are made in a conclusory manner, stating that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24, 33).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its substantive theory by reference to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 4, 5, and 6) that were not included with the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 25, 34). The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory and do not provide a basis for a detailed infringement analysis or the creation of a claim chart summary.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court may be one of claim scope. The patents-in-suit describe their inventions almost exclusively in the context of telephony call centers, automatic call distributors (ACDs), and the matching of callers with agents ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-4:67). A potential point of contention is whether claim terms rooted in this context, such as "call," "agent," and "communications router," can be construed to read on the architecture and functionality of a software-based messaging platform.
• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether Defendant’s products actually perform the multi-step optimization required by the claims. For example, for the '420 Patent, what evidence shows that the accused system performs an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," as opposed to a different form of routing or matching logic? ('420 Patent, Abstract). The complaint provides no technical details to substantiate this allegation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"matching a first entity with at least one second entity" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the scope of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the patent applies only to the specific call center environment described in the specification or can be extended to other technological domains, such as a software messaging platform. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification appears to ground it in a specific technical context.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of general terms like "first entity" and "second entity" in the claim itself, without express limitation to "caller" or "agent," may support an argument for a broader application beyond the disclosed embodiments.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently frames the invention in the context of call centers, using terms like "call," "agent," "call center," and "Automatic Call Distribution (ACD)" throughout its explanation of the problem and solution ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-4:67). The abstract itself discusses "opportunity cost of the unavailability of the... second entities for matching with an alternate first entity," a concept explained in the specification with respect to call center agent efficiency ('420 Patent, col. 24:43-50).

"estimating an economic value for routing each respective communication" ('748 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the '748 patent may turn on whether the accused system performs a calculation that qualifies as an "economic value" estimation as taught in the patent. The definition of "economic" will be key to establishing whether the accused functionality falls within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not limit "economic value" to a specific currency or formula, suggesting it could encompass any quantifiable metric of utility, cost, or benefit used for routing decisions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this "economic value" in the context of optimizing business goals, such as sales volume, profit, and customer satisfaction, which are "normalized into economic terms" ('748 Patent, col. 24:30-42). This may support an interpretation that requires a direct or indirect connection to business or financial metrics, rather than purely technical ones like network latency or server load.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '748 and '086 Patents. The stated basis for inducement is Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 31). The complaint references Exhibits 5 and 6, which are not publicly available, as containing evidence of these instructions.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the '748 and '086 Patents, with knowledge established by the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 30). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-suit, rather than pre-suit, willful infringement.

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

The litigation will likely focus on two central questions for the court:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims of the patents-in-suit, which are described and exemplified in the technical context of telephony call centers from the early- to mid-2000s, be construed broadly enough to cover the distinct architecture and functionality of a modern, software-based messaging service?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what specific evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the complex, multi-factor "economic" optimization and auction-based matching required by the claims, as opposed to other, more conventional methods of routing digital communications? The complaint’s conclusory allegations suggest this will be a central point of contention to be explored in discovery.