DCT

1:24-cv-01138

Patent Armory Inc. v. Purdue University Global, Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01138, D. Del., 10/13/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s internal systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, by using multi-factor analysis to match incoming requests with available agents or resources.
  • Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative patent challenges, is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,979 and 7,269,253
2003-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,237,420 and 9,456,086
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issues
2024-10-13 Complaint Filing Date

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 Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use static "queue/team" models for routing calls, leading to "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" problems that reduce transactional throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by defining targeting and characteristic parameters for each as "multivalued scalar data." It then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:33-53). This system moves beyond simple skill matching to a more dynamic, economic-based optimization.
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economic model-based system designed to optimize the global efficiency of a communications center, not just the outcome of a single call (’420 Patent, col. 5:10-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims without specification (Compl. ¶ 15). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity;
    • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for each of a plurality of second entities; and
    • 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 other claims (Compl. ¶ 15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, namely the inefficiencies and lack of adaptability in conventional call center routing systems (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications control system that uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" and then directly control call routing (’748 Patent, col. 31:49-56). The selection is based on a correspondence between a "call classification vector" (describing the call) and a table of "agent characteristic vectors" (describing agent skills), using a table of skill weights to perform the optimization (’748 Patent, col. 32:7-17). The system is designed to integrate this intelligent decision-making at a low level within the communications management architecture (’748 Patent, col. 18:25-33).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed system integrates the intelligent routing logic directly into the communications control platform, which can reduce latencies and transactional load on separate high-level management systems that traditionally performed such analysis (’748 Patent, col. 25:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims without specification (Compl. ¶ 21). Independent system claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • an input for receiving a call classification vector;
    • a table of agent characteristic vectors; and
    • a processor for determining an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence of the vectors, and controlling call routing in dependence thereon.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶ 21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficient call routing in telephony systems (’979 Patent, col. 2:25-47). It discloses a control system that computes an "optimum agent selection" by matching a "communications classification" with a database of agent skills and a database of skill weights, and then directly controls the routing of the communication (’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶ 30).
  • Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶ 30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’979 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of inefficient call routing (’253 Patent, col. 2:25-47). The claimed solution is a control system that uses a communications classification, a database of skill weights, and a database of agent skills to compute an optimum agent selection and control call routing (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶ 36).
  • Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶ 36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficiencies in matching entities, such as callers and agents in a call center (’086 Patent, col. 4:35-51). The invention is a method that uses "multivalued scalar data" to represent the entities and performs an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of forgoing alternative matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶ 42).
  • Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶ 42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It makes only general allegations that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports infringing products and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for each asserted patent that were not provided with the public filing. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • '420 Patent & '748 Patent Infringement Allegations:
    The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’420 and ’748 Patents (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). It asserts that these products satisfy all elements of the exemplary asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). The complaint incorporates by reference its allegations from the non-provided claim charts of Exhibits 6 and 7 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual. The complaint provides no specific facts to support its conclusory allegations of infringement. A central question for the court will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant's unspecified systems perform the steps of the asserted claims.
    • Scope Questions: A key legal question will concern claim scope. For the ’420 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s systems, presumably used in an educational context, perform an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and consider an "opportunity cost" as those terms are used in the patent. For the ’748 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s systems perform an "optimum agent selection" as required by the claims or merely apply simpler, predefined routing rules.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central functional step of the ’420 Patent's independent claims. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any system that considers costs, or narrowly to require a specific type of economic modeling.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term broadly in the abstract without limitation to a specific formula, suggesting it could cover various methods of optimizing based on economic factors (’420 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses optimizing a specific "cost-utility function" that includes factors like agent cost, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost, suggesting a more structured and multi-faceted calculation is required than a simple cost minimization (’420 Patent, col. 24:42-51).

  • The Term: "optimum agent selection" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the outcome of the core processing step. Its construction will determine whether a simple skill-matching system infringes, or if a more complex, multi-factor analysis is required by the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that in a near-capacity situation, the system may bypass more advanced optimizations and use a "traditional skill based call routing algorithm" to achieve an "optimum" short-term result, which could support a construction that does not always require complex, multi-factor analysis (’748 Patent, col. 36:15-21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "optimum" selection as the result of a cost-utility function that considers not only skills but also long-term goals like agent training, suggesting "optimum" is not merely the best skill match but the best result for the overall system over time (’748 Patent, col. 35:30-31; col. 36:30-34).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It claims Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 45). The complaint also asserts that Defendant has had actual knowledge since being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement, but the allegations of "actual knowledge" of the ’748 and ’086 Patents since the filing of the suit could form the basis for a future claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 44-45).

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

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be whether the complaint’s conclusory allegations, which lack any specific factual support regarding the accused products, can survive a motion to dismiss under modern pleading standards. Subsequently, the key question will be what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can muster to demonstrate that Defendant’s systems practice the claimed methods.
  • Claim Scope and Construction: The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can abstract, economically-focused terms from the patents, such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," be construed to cover the functions of Defendant's presumably non-commercial, educational, and administrative software systems?
  • Mismatch in Technical Operation: A central technical question will be whether the Defendant’s systems perform the dynamic, multi-factorial, and often predictive optimizations required by the patent claims, or if they employ simpler, static, or rule-based logic for routing communications that falls outside the scope of the patented inventions.