Patent Armory Inc v. ABP OpCo LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: ABP OpCo, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00922, D. Del., 08/23/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a telecommunications context.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for managing call centers and other communication systems by using economic models and multi-factor analysis to route communications and match parties, aiming to improve efficiency beyond simple queuing methods.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued March 19, 2019 (the ’420 Patent).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as static groupings of agents and simple routing rules (e.g., first-in, first-out) that fail to optimally match callers with agents possessing the right skills, leading to problems with "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents handling calls (’420 Patent, col. 4:36-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as a transaction to be optimized. The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the skill-based fit but also the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows the system to make a globally optimal decision for the call center rather than just the best match for a single call in isolation (’420 Patent, col. 24:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables a more dynamic and economically efficient model for call center routing, moving beyond simple queuing to a system that maximizes the overall utility or value generated by the call center's operations (’420 Patent, col. 23:30-40).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’420 Patent but does not identify specific claims (Compl. ¶15). The patent’s independent claims are 1 and 15.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the 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 match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” issued November 26, 2019 (the ’748 Patent).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, focusing on the limitations of traditional, non-deterministic call center routing systems that cannot perform complex, real-time optimizations to match callers with the most suitable agents (’748 Patent, col. 1:26–2:65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their "predicted characteristics" and an associated "economic utility." The system determines an "optimal routing" by maximizing an "aggregate utility" across all potential pairings (’748 Patent, Abstract). This allows the system to incorporate factors like the value of agent training into the routing decision, optimizing for long-term call center goals rather than just immediate efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 27:10-15; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for intelligent, economically-driven communication routing that can adapt to changing conditions and optimize for complex business objectives beyond simple call handling metrics (’748 Patent, col. 28:5-14).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent but does not identify specific claims (Compl. ¶21). The patent's independent claims are 1 and 11.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • A system for representing predicted characteristics and economic utility for a plurality of communication sources.
    • A system for representing predicted characteristics and economic utility for a plurality of communication targets.
    • A system for determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

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 (the ’979 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that moves beyond simple, static routing rules. It introduces an intelligent system that uses a multi-factorial optimization based on "skill weights" and "agent skill scores" to determine the optimal agent for handling a communication, with the routing logic being executed within the low-level communication server itself (’979 Patent, col. 18:8-23).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶30). Independent claims of the patent are 1, 10, 17, and 20.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’979 Patent but provides no specific details on the accused features (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 (the ’253 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a communications control system that performs an "optimizing algorithm" to resolve a communication target. A key aspect is the integration of this intelligent decision-making at a low level within the communications management architecture, allowing for real-time, inferential routing based on a "cost-benefit" analysis rather than a simple, predetermined address (’253 Patent, col. 18:8-23).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶39). Independent claims of the patent are 1, 10, 17, and 21.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe by practicing the claimed technology, without identifying specific features (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 (the ’086 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’420 patent, this patent describes a method for matching entities by defining their characteristics as "multivalued scalar data" and performing an "automated optimization." The optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for other potential matches, framing the matching process as an economic auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶45). Independent claims of the patent are 1, 8, 11, and 20.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe by practicing the claimed technology, without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products by name in the body of the complaint. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in Exhibits 6 through 10 (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶39, ¶45). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused products. The pleading contains only conclusory statements that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides no narrative infringement theory or claim charts for any of the asserted patents. Instead, it incorporates by reference Exhibits 6-10, which allegedly contain claim charts but were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27, ¶35-36, ¶41-42, ¶50-51). The complaint’s infringement allegations are therefore entirely conclusory.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Absent a description of the accused products, a central question will be whether Defendant's systems perform functions that fall within the scope of the patent claims. For the auction-based patents (’420, ’086), a likely point of contention will be whether the term "auction" can be interpreted to read on Defendant's method for assigning communications, if that method does not involve explicit bidding. For the intelligent routing patents (’748, ’979, ’253), a key question may be whether Defendant's system performs the claimed "optimization" based on "economic utility" or merely uses a set of predefined, non-economic routing rules.
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be evidentiary: what proof can Plaintiff offer that Defendant's products perform the specific multi-step optimizations required by the claims? For instance, for the ’420 Patent, Plaintiff would need to show that an accused system calculates not only a direct match value but also a specific "opportunity cost" associated with that match, which may be a technically distinct function from what Defendant's products actually do.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the central inventive concept of the asserted method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple cost-benefit analysis infringes, or if a more specific, multi-part economic calculation is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in terms of a general "cost-utility function" that can be adapted to various business goals, which may support a broader reading that covers different types of economic analysis (’420 Patent, col. 23:41-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a formula that explicitly includes separate terms for the value of the transaction, the change in value of the agent, and the opportunity cost, suggesting these are distinct, required calculations (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-54).

’748 Patent

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term defines the goal of the claimed "optimal routing" system. The dispute will likely center on whether Defendant's system performs a true "maximization" of a calculated "utility" value, or if it applies a simpler, heuristic-based routing logic.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent notes that the goal of a call center is to "satisfy the customer at lowest cost to the company," a broad objective that could be construed as maximizing a general utility (’748 Patent, col. 27:26-28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes utility in the context of a specific, multi-factor "cost-utility function" that normalizes disparate factors into a common "cost" metric for numerical analysis, suggesting a more structured mathematical process is required (’748 Patent, col. 24:15-24).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant distributing "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: While the complaint does not use the word "willful," it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶32, ¶47). This allegation provides a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents’ claims to specific, economically-defined optimizations—such as maximizing an "aggregate utility" or accounting for "opportunity cost"—be construed to cover the potentially simpler, rule-based routing algorithms that may be used in Defendant's commercial systems?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's complete reliance on unprovided exhibits, what technical evidence can the Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the complex, multi-element optimization and matching functions recited in the asserted independent claims?