Patent Armory Inc v. Ameriprise Financial Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00497, D. Del., 04/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business operations infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based resource matching systems.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to computer telephony integration (CTI) for optimizing resource allocation in communications networks, particularly call centers, by intelligently matching incoming communications with available agents.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. The '420' patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

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 describes the inefficiencies of traditional call center management, where calls are often routed on a simple first-come-first-served basis to groups of agents. This can result in mismatches, such as routing a customer to an agent who is under-skilled for the specific problem or, conversely, assigning a simple task to a highly-trained, over-skilled agent, leading to inefficient use of resources and poor customer service (US10237420B1, col. 2:26-42, col. 4:1-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a caller to an agent as a multi-faceted optimization problem. Instead of simple queuing, the system defines parameters for the caller (the "first entity") and for a plurality of available agents (the "second entities"). It then performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match based not only on skills but also on economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a good match and the "opportunity cost" of making a skilled agent unavailable for a potentially more valuable future call (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows for more dynamic and globally efficient resource allocation within the call center (’420 Patent, col. 4:5-12).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economically-driven model that can adapt to changing call loads and agent availability to maximize overall call center efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 4:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified method claims of the '420 Patent, referring to them as the "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" identified in the unprovided Exhibit 6 (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the challenge of efficiently routing communications in environments where sources (e.g., customers) and targets (e.g., service agents) have varied and complex characteristics. Traditional routing methods are often too rigid to account for the numerous factors that determine an optimal match, leading to inefficient operations (US10491748B1, col. 2:26-42, col. 4:1-34).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for determining an optimal routing path by representing both communication sources and targets with sets of "predicted characteristics." The system aims to maximize an "aggregate utility" by evaluating these characteristics, which can encompass both economic and non-economic factors. This allows the system to make routing decisions that consider long-term goals, such as agent training, alongside short-term efficiency (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system can, for example, balance routing for immediate efficiency when call volume is high against routing for training purposes when volume is low (’748 Patent, col. 36:5-32).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for intelligent and adaptive network routing that can be optimized for global, long-term objectives rather than just immediate, localized call-handling metrics (’748 Patent, col. 36:5-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified claims of the '748 Patent, referring to them as the "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" identified in the unprovided Exhibit 7 (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 26).

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

Technology Synopsis

Based on its title, this patent appears to relate to systems for intelligently managing and directing telephone calls. The technology likely involves automated decision-making processes to route calls within a telephony network, similar to the technologies of the '420 and '748 patents (Compl. ¶ 11).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified method claims of the '979 Patent, identified in the unprovided Exhibit 8 (Compl. ¶ 30).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 30).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent, like the '979 patent, is titled Telephony control system with intelligent call routing. It likely covers methods and systems for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of call distribution in a communications network by using intelligent control logic (Compl. ¶ 12).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified method claims of the '253 Patent, identified in the unprovided Exhibit 9 (Compl. ¶ 36).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 36).

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

Technology Synopsis

With a title similar to the '420 patent, this patent appears to concern systems that use auction-based principles to match different entities. In the context of the other patents-in-suit, this likely involves treating the process of assigning a communication to a resource as a competitive auction to determine the optimal pairing based on various factors (Compl. ¶ 13).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified claims of the '086 Patent, identified in the unprovided Exhibit 10 (Compl. ¶ 42).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶ 42).

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" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality, operation, or market context of the accused instrumentalities. All allegations regarding the technical operation of the accused products are made by incorporating by reference a series of exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint's infringement allegations for the '420, '748, '979, '253, and '086 patents are made entirely by reference to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively) that were not provided with the complaint document. The complaint itself offers no narrative description of the alleged infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Because the patents describe their inventions in the context of general communications and call centers, a potential point of dispute may be whether the claim terms, such as "auction" and "economic surplus," can be construed to read on the specific systems and methods used by a financial services company to manage client and agent interactions.
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be factual and evidentiary. The case will depend on the specific evidence Plaintiff provides to demonstrate that Defendant's systems perform the particular multi-step optimization and routing processes required by the asserted patent claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims from any of the patents-in-suit, precluding an analysis of key terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has actual knowledge of the ’748 and ’086 Patents at least from the date of service of the complaint. Any continued infringement after this date is alleged to be willful (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 44-45).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: as the complaint makes only bare allegations and incorporates all technical details by reference to unprovided exhibits, the case will immediately turn on the specific evidence Plaintiff produces in those exhibits and through discovery to connect the abstract concepts in the patents to the concrete operations of Defendant’s platforms.
• A key question of claim scope will be whether the patents' terminology, rooted in call-center optimization and "auctions," can be interpreted to cover the potentially distinct ways a financial services firm matches clients to advisors or financial products. The dispute may focus on whether Defendant's systems perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" and "utility maximization" functions claimed, or whether they operate on different principles.