Patent Armory Inc v. CICI Enterprises LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: CICI Enterprisess, LP (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00930, D. Del., 08/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching systems for telecommunications.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in call centers, a critical function for managing customer service operations efficiently.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference 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 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction”

Issued March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiencies of traditional call centers that use simple first-come-first-served or static skill-based routing, which fail to optimize resource allocation dynamically (ʼ420 Patent, col. 1:26-4:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) to a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) as a type of auction. An automated optimization process is used to select the best match by calculating not only the direct value of a potential pairing but also its "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of making that specific agent unavailable for other potential callers (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). This creates a more dynamic and economically efficient allocation of resources compared to static routing rules.
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple, rule-based call routing to a holistic, economic optimization model that accounts for system-wide effects of any single routing decision.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims, instead referring to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • 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 respective characteristic parameters; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.

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

Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations of conventional call centers in efficiently handling electronic customer contact and balancing service quality with resource utilization (’748 Patent, col. 1:12-2:51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path between communication sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility." This is based on representing the "predicted characteristics" of both sources and targets, each of which has an "economic utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system aims to create the most valuable overall set of connections rather than just the best single connection.
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for intelligent, utility-maximizing routing decisions in complex communication environments like call centers.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • representing, by a computer, a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility;
  • representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility; and
  • determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics.

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 performs intelligent call routing. It addresses the problem of matching callers with appropriately skilled agents in a call center by using a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" based on a communications classification and agent skill scores, thereby directly controlling the routing of the call (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-24).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which features are accused, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an un-filed exhibit (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).

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, a continuation of the technology in the ’979 Patent, describes a system for combinatorial optimization in call routing. It determines an optimum set of pairings between a plurality of concurrent calls and a set of available agents by performing a multifactorial optimization based on the weighted correspondence between call characteristics and agent characteristics (’253 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-24).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which features are accused, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an un-filed exhibit (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).

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, a parent to the ’420 Patent, discloses a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for second entities. It then performs an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-24).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which features are accused, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an un-filed exhibit (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in Exhibits 6 through 10 (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶21, ¶26). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Consequently, the complaint provides no factual description of the accused instrumentality’s functionality or its market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations. Each count of infringement states that charts comparing the patent claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are included in an exhibit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50). These exhibits, which contain the substantive infringement allegations, were not filed with the complaint. The body of the complaint offers only conclusory statements that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17). Without access to the referenced exhibits or any factual allegations in the pleading itself, it is not possible to construct a claim chart or identify potential points of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes, as it contains no theory of infringement. However, based on the language of the representative independent claims of the lead patents, certain terms may become central to the case.

For the ’420 Patent:

• The Term: "economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This term is a cornerstone of the claimed optimization process. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused system’s routing logic, whatever it may be, performs the specific type of calculation required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine the scope of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the concept in general economic terms, such as balancing competing goals and making efficient use of resources, without being tied to a specific mathematical formula (’420 Patent, col. 2:28-35). This may support a construction that covers any optimization considering value beyond a simple cost metric.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract explicitly links "economic surplus" to an "opportunity cost of the unavailability" of an agent for an "alternate first entity" (’420 Patent, Abstract). This suggests the term may require a specific calculation that considers the system-wide impact of a routing decision, not just the value of the single match itself.

For the ’748 Patent:

• The Term: "economic utility"
• Context and Importance: Similar to "economic surplus" in the ’420 Patent, the definition of "economic utility" is fundamental to the infringement analysis. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product calculates a value that can be characterized as an "economic utility" used to maximize an "aggregate utility" for the entire system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes balancing competing goals like service quality and efficiency, suggesting "utility" could be interpreted broadly to encompass various performance metrics (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description repeatedly reference a "cost-utility function" in the context of long-term and short-term call center operations (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:30-42). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific function that weighs both costs and benefits, rather than a general performance score.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents. The allegations are based on the defendant allegedly 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: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents, and that infringement has continued post-filing (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶32-33, ¶47-48). The prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. Prayer ¶N.i.).

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

• A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that contains no factual allegations of infringement in its body and relies entirely on external exhibits that were not filed with the court satisfy the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement?
• A central technical question, should the case proceed, will be one of definitional scope: can abstract, economics-based claim terms such as "economic surplus" and "aggregate utility," which are described in the context of call centers, be construed to read on the specific functionalities of the defendant's accused products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: assuming a claim construction, what evidence can the plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused systems actually perform the specific multi-factorial, predictive, and cost-aware optimizations required by the patent claims, as opposed to conventional routing methods?