DCT

1:23-cv-00853

Patent Armory Inc v. Cruise America Travel Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00853, D. Del., 08/07/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer communication and/or booking systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves sophisticated call center management systems that use economic principles and multifactorial analysis to optimize the routing of communications to agents or other resources.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit or pre-suit correspondence between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for ’979 and ’420 Patents
2006-03-23 Priority Date for ’253 Patent
2006-04-03 Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2006-04-04 ’979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11 ’253 Patent Issued
2010-03-08 Priority Date for ’086 Patent
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19 ’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 ’748 Patent Issued
2023-08-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of inefficiently matching incoming communications (e.g., calls) with available resources (e.g., agents) in a high-volume call center (US10237420B1, col. 2:26-34). Traditional methods like first-in-first-out or longest-idle-agent routing are described as suboptimal, particularly when agents have varying skills (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 4:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" (US 10,237,420 B1, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the direct value of a potential match, framed as an "economic surplus," but also the "opportunity cost" of making that specific resource unavailable for other potential future matches (US 10,237,420 B1, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technical approach aims to move beyond simple queuing rules to a more dynamic, economic-based optimization that can globally minimize a cost function for the call center (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 4:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying any particular claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of 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 representing characteristic parameters for each of a plurality of second entities.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match.
    • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies inefficiencies in call centers that use static or simple skill-based routing, which can result in mismatches between caller needs and agent expertise (the "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" problems) (US10491748B1, col. 4:35-51, incorporated by reference from the family).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility" (US 10,491,748 B1, Abstract). The system considers predicted characteristics of both communication sources and targets and may factor in long-term operational goals, such as the utility of a call for training purposes, rather than just immediate efficiency (US 10,491,748 B1, Fig. 1, 311-312).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for a more holistic approach to call routing by incorporating long-term objectives and training value into the optimization algorithm, aiming for global and sustained efficiency rather than just short-term transactional throughput (US 10,491,748 B1, col. 24:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying any particular claim numbers (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving call classification information for a plurality of calls.
    • Representing a plurality of agent characteristics for a plurality of agents.
    • Determining an optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations of agents with calls.
    • The determination is dependent on a multifactorial optimization of the weighted correspondence of the call characteristics and the agent characteristics.
    • Controlling a concurrent call routing based on the determination.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that intelligently routes calls by characterizing the caller and the available agents. It uses a cost-utility function to optimize the selection of an agent, potentially factoring in long-term goals like agent training alongside short-term efficiency metrics (US7023979B1, col. 24:30-41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products practice the claimed technology but does not specify which features of those products are accused (Compl. ¶30).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, also discloses a system for intelligent call routing in a call center. The invention involves a combinatorial optimization to match communications with a set of available targets (e.g., agents) based on a cost-benefit analysis, rather than relying on simple, pre-determined routing rules (US7269253B1, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's products generally, without identifying specific infringing features (Compl. ¶39).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by conducting an "auction." The system performs an automated optimization considering both economic factors (compensating for suboptimal profile matches) and non-economic factors (optimality of matching profiles) to determine the routing of communications (US9456086B1, Fig. 7).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe but does not specify which features are accused (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶15). It refers to them generically as "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states that they are identified in claim charts included as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. Based on Defendant's business as a recreational vehicle rental and sales company, the accused instrumentalities may relate to its customer service, sales, or reservation systems.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 6 through 10, which were not provided with the pleading (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the face of the complaint. The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the terminology used in the patents, such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," can be construed to read on the functionalities of what may be a commercial customer relationship management or booking system used by an RV rental company.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details about how the accused products operate. A key point of contention will therefore be whether Defendant's systems actually perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" steps required by the claims of the ’420, ’748, and related patents, or if they employ more conventional routing logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’420 Patent:

    • The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus . . . and an opportunity cost"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase appears in independent claim 1 and captures the core of the purported invention. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused system performs a calculation that can be characterized as considering both a direct "surplus" and a forward-looking "opportunity cost," as opposed to a simpler, single-factor routing decision.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description discusses the optimization in the general context of balancing competing goals to make "efficient use of call center resources," which may support a broader reading beyond a strict mathematical formula (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 2:32-34).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract frames the two components—"economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"—as distinct inputs to the optimization, suggesting they are both required limitations that must be separately satisfied by an accused system (US 10,237,420 B1, Abstract).

  • For the ’748 Patent:

    • The Term: "multifactorial optimization of (i) the weighted correspondence of the plurality of classification characteristics . . . and (ii) the plurality of agent characteristics"
    • Context and Importance: This term from independent claim 1 defines the specific type of calculation required. Infringement may turn on whether Defendant's system performs a "multifactorial" and "weighted" analysis that considers both call-side and agent-side data, as opposed to a simpler skill-based matching rule.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the system may be used for "intelligent communication routing within a low-level communication server system," which could be argued to encompass a wide range of analytical routing methods (US 10,491,748 B1, col. 18:10-12).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow charts and detailed description explicitly show the optimization considering long-term factors like "training utility" and agent costs, suggesting the optimization must go beyond simple skill matching to meet the claim limitation (US 10,491,748 B1, Fig. 2; col. 24:1-6).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation 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).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, it alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 47). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the technical terminology of the patents, such as "auction" and "economic surplus," rooted in complex optimization theory for call centers, be construed to cover the likely functionalities of a commercial booking and customer service platform for an RV rental business?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations regarding the accused products' operations, the case will likely turn on what discovery reveals about whether Defendant’s systems actually perform the specific, multi-step, and often economic-based "multifactorial optimization" processes required by the asserted claims.