Patent Armory Inc v. Standard Chartered Trade Services Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Standard Chartered Trade Services Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00682, D. Del., 06/10/2024
• 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 allegedly committed acts of patent infringement resulting in harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities in telecommunications systems.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to automated call distribution (ACD) and computer-telephony integration (CTI) systems, which are foundational to the operation of modern call centers and other large-scale communication hubs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. The patents themselves belong to a large, interrelated family with a prosecution history spanning over two decades, suggesting a long-term focus on this technology area.

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 inefficiencies in traditional call centers, such as the inequitable distribution of calls and the problems of routing transactions to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents, which reduces transactional throughput (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 4:1-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract). This allows for dynamic, economically-driven routing decisions beyond simple skill matching, as illustrated in the system architecture showing inputs like cost functions and skill weights being processed to route calls (’420 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, optimization-based model that can account for complex variables like agent cost, training value, and overall business goals (’420 Patent, col. 2:25-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary method claims (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent requires:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a first entity (representing "inferential targeting parameters").
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities (representing "characteristic parameters").
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match between the first and a second entity.
  • The optimization also considers an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 limitations of conventional communication systems that rely on predetermined addresses (e.g., phone numbers or IP addresses), which lack the flexibility to route communications based on contextual or inferential criteria (’748 Patent, related ’420 Patent spec., col. 17:10-16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides for a routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility." It does this by representing the "predicted characteristics" of both the communication sources (e.g., callers) and the communication targets (e.g., agents) and then calculating the best match (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to resolve the target of a communication in real-time based on a high-level, algorithmic definition rather than a fixed address (’748 Patent, related ’420 Patent spec., col. 17:10-24).
• Technical Importance: This method allows for a more intelligent and adaptable communications infrastructure where routing decisions can be optimized for business goals, such as training or long-term value, rather than just immediate connection (’748 Patent, related ’420 Patent spec., col. 27:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent requires:
  • Representing 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."
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to their predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

Issued April 4, 2006

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by receiving a "communications classification," accessing a database of agent skills and skill weights, and computing an optimal agent selection based on a cost-benefit analysis ('979 Patent, Abstract). The system aims to move beyond simple routing rules to a more sophisticated, optimization-based approach for call center management ('979 Patent, col. 1:12-24).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims, including exemplary method claims (Compl. ¶30).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology, as detailed in claim charts incorporated by reference in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶30, 32).

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, discloses a system for intelligent call routing based on a combinatorial optimization. The system considers characteristics of incoming communications and potential targets (e.g., agents) to determine an optimal match, moving beyond simple first-in, first-out queuing to a more dynamic model that accounts for various factors ('253 Patent, Abstract). The invention is framed as an improvement for managing high-traffic periods in call centers ('253 Patent, col. 2:63-67).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims, including exemplary method claims (Compl. ¶36).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology, with specifics contained in claim charts that are incorporated by reference but not provided (Compl. ¶36, 38).

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

Issued September 27, 2016

Technology Synopsis

Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent describes a method for matching entities by defining their characteristics as "multivalued scalar data" and then performing an automated optimization ('086 Patent, Abstract). The optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making a target unavailable for other potential matches, framing the routing decision as an economic auction to maximize overall value ('086 Patent, col. 2:25-35).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe by practicing the claimed auction-based matching methods, referencing claim charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶42, 47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but identifies them only in charts contained within Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which are incorporated by reference but were not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific technical functionality or market context. The infringement counts generally allege that these products practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). A detailed claim-chart summary is therefore not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patents asserted use specialized terms like "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, Claim 1) as well as "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1). A primary point of contention may be whether Defendant's accused systems, which may perform multi-factor routing, legally constitute an "auction" or calculate an "economic surplus" as those terms would be construed by the court. The dispute may turn on whether these terms require explicit financial calculations and bidding mechanisms or can be interpreted more broadly to cover any system that uses weighted scores to optimize assignments.
• Technical Questions: The core of the patented technology involves "automated optimization" based on various parameters (’420 Patent, Claim 1). A key technical question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused products perform the specific type of multi-factorial, economically-informed optimization required by the claims, as opposed to a more conventional, rules-based form of skill-based routing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus"

From ’420 Patent, Claim 1

Context and Importance

The case for infringement of the auction-based patents ('420 and '086) may hinge on the definition of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to require explicit financial calculations or a formal bidding process, it may be more difficult for Plaintiff to prove infringement. A broader construction covering any algorithmic balancing of weighted factors could favor the Plaintiff's infringement theory.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimizing a "cost-utility function" and a "cost-benefit outcome," which are general terms that may support a construction not strictly limited to monetary values (’420 Patent, Fig. 1, 308; Fig. 4, 608). The specification also contemplates non-economic factors influencing the optimization (’420 Patent, col. 22:56-65).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title and abstract repeatedly use the terms "auction" and "economic," which could support a narrower construction tied to their conventional meanings in economics (’420 Patent, Title; Abstract). The detailed description notes that "agents bid for a caller" and may be "compensated on a commission basis," which suggests a more literal financial context (’420 Patent, col. 21:50-57).

The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"

From ’748 Patent, Claim 1

Context and Importance

This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’748 Patent. The dispute will likely focus on how "utility" is defined and whether the accused system performs a genuine "maximization" process. If "utility" is construed to mean a specific type of calculated score and "maximizing" requires a global optimization across all possible pairings, it could present a different evidentiary burden than a simpler, localized matching process.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The related specification for the ’420 patent, which contains similar subject matter, discusses utility in broad terms, including factors like "training cost" and "customer satisfaction," which are not always easily quantifiable (’420 Patent, col. 23:11-12; col. 24:1-4). This may support a construction where "utility" is a composite, weighted score.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires maximizing this utility, which could be interpreted to mean finding the single best overall solution from all possibilities. The specification discusses complex combinatorial analysis, which may support a construction requiring more than a simple greedy algorithm that finds the "best available" match at any given moment (’748 Patent, Fig. 7).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It asserts that at least since the filing of the complaint, Defendant has known of the patents and induced infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, 25, 45, 46).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents arising from the service of the complaint and alleges that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶23, 24, 44, 45). These allegations of post-suit knowledge could form the basis for a later claim of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in economics, such as "auction" and "economic surplus," be construed to cover the multi-factor, score-based optimization algorithms allegedly used in Defendant's communication routing systems? The outcome of claim construction on these key phrases will significantly shape the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: given the complaint's reliance on unprovided exhibits to identify the accused products and their functions, a central challenge for the Plaintiff will be to demonstrate through discovery how the accused systems actually operate on a technical level and whether they in fact perform the specific multi-step optimization and utility maximization processes required by the asserted claims.
• A third question concerns the basis of knowledge for indirect infringement: the complaint bases its inducement allegations on knowledge established by the complaint itself. This raises the question of whether Plaintiff can establish the requisite intent for pre-suit indirect infringement, or if such claims will be limited to post-filing conduct.