DCT

1:24-cv-00498

Patent Armory Inc v. DoorDash Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00498, D. Del., 04/22/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s on-demand delivery platform infringes five U.S. patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems for optimizing the routing of communications and matching of parties, which is a core technological function for online platforms, logistics services, and telecommunications call centers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit, any post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or any relevant licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for ’979, ’086, ’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
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19 ’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 ’748 Patent Issued
2024-04-22 Complaint Filed

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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, such as the "under-skilled agent problem," where transactions are routed to agents without sufficient skills, and the "over-skilled agent problem," where highly trained agents handle tasks below their skill level, leading to inefficient resource allocation. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intelligent switching architecture that moves beyond simple queuing rules. It uses an automated processor to evaluate pairings between an incoming request (a "first entity") and available service providers (a "second entity") by performing a "multifactorial optimization" that considers characteristics of both, as well as factors like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, Abstract, col. 18:8-23, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables communications systems to dynamically optimize routing decisions in real time based on a range of business and performance metrics, rather than relying on static, inefficient rules. (’420 Patent, col. 18:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’420 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶17). For analytical purposes, the elements of independent claim 1 are presented below:

  • A method of pairing requests, comprising:
  • estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request;
  • determining a set of available partners, each having at least one respective partner characteristic;
  • evaluating, with at least one automated processor, a plurality of pairings of the request with a plurality of different available partners, according to an evaluator for valuing pairings of the request with respective available partners...dependent on the at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic, and the at least one respective partner characteristic; and
  • generating a control signal, by the at least one automated processor, selectively dependent on the evaluating.

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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the limitations of call centers that rely on general-purpose computers with non-deterministic operating systems, which can introduce significant latencies and impair real-time performance when managing communications. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 2:7-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications routing system that represents predicted characteristics and economic utility for both communication sources (e.g., customers) and targets (e.g., agents). The system determines an optimal routing between them by maximizing an "aggregate utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract). This intelligence is integrated into a low-level communications server to reduce latency and enable complex, real-time routing decisions. (’748 Patent, col. 19:26-34, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: By embedding optimization logic directly within the low-level communications management architecture, the system aims to reduce reliance on external high-level software, thereby decreasing transactional load and improving the speed and efficiency of routing decisions. (’748 Patent, col. 25:47-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’748 Patent are asserted, referring instead to "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶26). For analytical purposes, the elements of independent claim 1 are presented below:

  • A system for assigning communications, comprising a processor and a memory configured to cause the processor to:
  • receive a plurality of respective communications;
  • identify a plurality of resources available for association...each having a limited quantitative capacity...and an availability state;
  • calculate a respective score associated with each available resource dependent on the availability state;
  • estimate an expected economic value to be obtained by associating each respective communication with each respective available resource, dependent on at least the score and a communication-content dependent value function of an outcome; and
  • assign each of the plurality of respective communications to one of the plurality of resources based on at least the estimated expected economic value.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficient call routing in telephony systems. It proposes a control system comprising an input for receiving a communication's classification, a database of skill weights, a database of agent skill scores, and a processor for computing an "optimum agent selection" to directly control the routing of the communication. (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to an unprovided Exhibit 8. (Compl. ¶32).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s products that perform intelligent routing of infringing the ’979 Patent. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficient call routing by proposing a method that involves receiving communications, storing characteristics of potential targets (e.g., agents), and performing a "combinatorial optimization" to determine an optimum target for each communication based on the characteristics of both. (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to an unprovided Exhibit 9. (Compl. ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s products that perform intelligent routing of infringing the ’253 Patent. (Compl. ¶36).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the matching of entities by defining multivalued scalar data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for a plurality of second entities. It then performs an "automated optimization" with respect to economic surplus and opportunity cost to determine the best match. (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to an unprovided Exhibit 10. (Compl. ¶47).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s products that perform auction-based matching of infringing the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Exemplary Defendant Products," which encompass DoorDash, Inc.’s on-demand delivery platform, including its associated software and systems. (Compl. ¶15, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant operates products and services that match customers, merchants, and delivery personnel ("Dashers") and route communications and orders between them. (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶42). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the underlying operation of the accused platform, instead alleging in a conclusory manner that the platform's functions practice the patented technologies. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents-in-suit but refers to external exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) for detailed claim charts comparing the patent claims to the accused products. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, a claim-chart summary table cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory for the ’420 Patent is that DoorDash's system for matching customers with merchants and delivery personnel constitutes the claimed "method and system for matching entities in an auction." (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The theory for the ’748 Patent is that DoorDash's system for routing orders and communications between these parties embodies the claimed "intelligent communication routing system and method." (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Similar allegations are made for the remaining three patents.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the '420 and '086 patents may be whether the process by which DoorDash assigns a delivery order to a "Dasher" can be construed as an "auction" or an optimization of "economic surplus" as contemplated by the patents. For the '748, '979, and '253 patents, a question may be whether the patents' claims, rooted in the technical context of telephony call centers, can be read to cover the distinct technological environment of an on-demand food delivery platform.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific technical functionality. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that DoorDash's platform performs the specific "multifactorial optimization," "cost-utility," or "combinatorial optimization" functions required by the claims, rather than a different, non-infringing algorithm for matching and routing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "evaluating... according to an evaluator for valuing pairings" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed optimization process. The dispute may turn on whether DoorDash's matching algorithm performs a step that meets the definition of "valuing pairings." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the type and complexity of the analysis required to infringe.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the optimization may be for "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which could support a broad interpretation of "valuing." (’420 Patent, col. 4:7-9).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract describes the optimization with respect to an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," and the specification details optimizing a "cost-utility function," suggesting "valuing" may require a specific, quantitative economic calculation. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:30-40).
  • The Term: "estimate an expected economic value" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core calculation of the patented method. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether DoorDash's system can be shown to perform such an estimation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the intelligent server may be used to implement a range of "telephony or computer-telephony integration features," which could suggest that "economic value" is just one example of a broader class of optimization metrics. (’748 Patent, col. 18:23-25).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of economic factors, such as agent salaries and training costs, that can be normalized into a "cost" metric for a "cost-utility function," suggesting that a specific financial or quasi-financial calculation is what is meant by "economic value." (’748 Patent, col. 24:1-20).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It alleges that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents, with details purportedly in the unprovided Exhibits 7 and 10. (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its associated (unprovided) claim charts. (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). It further alleges that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products "despite such actual knowledge," which may form a basis for alleging post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claims, which are rooted in the technical context of telephony call centers and skill-based agent routing, be construed to cover the distinct technological environment of an on-demand delivery platform that matches customers, merchants, and delivery personnel?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: what evidence will be presented to show that DoorDash’s platform performs the specific "multifactorial optimization," "cost-utility," and "economic surplus" calculations required by the asserted claims, as opposed to employing a fundamentally different, non-infringing matching or routing algorithm?