Patent Armory Inc v. WESCO Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: WESCO International, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01139, D. Del., 10/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation with an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and resource matching technology used in telecommunications systems such as call centers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced, algorithm-based systems for routing communications, a field critical to managing operational efficiency and customer service quality in large-scale call centers.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of a large family of related applications, with priority dates stretching back to 2002 and 2003, indicating a long and focused history of invention and prosecution in the field of intelligent call routing.

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 Mar. 19, 2019)

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as the "under-skilled agent problem" (routing a call to an agent who cannot handle it) and the "over-skilled agent problem" (assigning a simple call to a highly trained, expensive agent) that arise from static "queue/team" models (US10237420B1, col. 4:35-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as a dynamic matching problem, akin to an auction. It uses a "multifactorial optimization" engine integrated at a low level within the communications switching system to intelligently match incoming communications (e.g., calls) with available targets (e.g., agents) based on a variety of skill-based, economic, and other factors to achieve an optimal outcome. (US 10,237,420 B1, Abstract; col. 18:10-24; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple, sequential call distribution to a more holistic, data-driven optimization designed to maximize the overall efficiency and utility of a call center’s resources. (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 4:1-12).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts exemplary method claims, such as independent claim 20 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Claim 20 requires, in essence:
    • Estimating a characteristic associated with each received request.
    • Determining the availability of alternate target resources with their own characteristics.
    • Evaluating, with a processor, alternate allocations of requests to targets using a "ranking dependent on a probabilistic predictive multivariate evaluator."
    • Generating a control signal to control the allocations based on the evaluation.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

---

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

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, focusing on the limitations of conventional automatic call distributors (ACDs) and the need for more intelligent, skill-based routing to improve efficiency. (US10491748B1, col. 4:35-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "intelligent switching architecture" where the routing decision is made by an algorithm rather than a pre-determined address. The system uses a processor to evaluate pairings of incoming requests with available "partners" (e.g., agents) based on a "probabilistic function" that considers the characteristics of both the request and the available partners. (US 10,491,748 B1, col. 18:9-24; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating the intelligent routing logic directly into the communications control system, the invention aims to enable real-time, context-aware routing decisions that optimize resource allocation. (US 10,491,748 B1, col. 18:55-61).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts one or more claims of the patent, such as independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Claim 1 requires, in essence:
    • A port to receive a request and identify a characteristic.
    • A memory to store availability information and characteristics for a plurality of partners.
    • An automated processor configured to generate a control signal based on an "evaluation of each of a plurality of pairings" of the request with available partners, dependent on a "probabilistic function" of the characteristics.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued Apr. 4, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for a call center that receives a communication classification and uses a database of agent skill scores. A processor computes an optimum agent selection based on the received classification and directly controls the routing of the call. (US7023979B1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶32).

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued Sep. 11, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, describes a system where characteristics of communications and potential targets are stored. An optimal target is determined for each communication based on a "combinatorial optimization" that considers a cost-benefit analysis before routing the communication. (US7269253B1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶38).

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued Sep. 27, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for a first entity (e.g., a caller) and multiple second entities (e.g., agents). The system performs an "automated optimization" with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches. (US9456086B1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly made, used, sold, or imported by the Defendant (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that these products practice the technology claimed in the patents-in-suit, but all specific comparisons are incorporated by reference from claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the asserted patents, incorporating by reference claim charts (Exhibits 6-10) that were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The narrative theory is that these products practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the exemplary claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). As the specific allegations mapping product functionality to claim elements are contained within the unfiled exhibits, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be how the accused products' routing systems actually function. The complaint's infringement theory rests on the assertion that these systems perform complex, multifactorial, and probabilistic optimizations as claimed in the patents. The key point of contention will be whether the evidence shows that the accused systems operate in this manner, or if they instead employ more conventional, non-infringing, rules-based logic for routing communications.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the claims themselves. For instance, do the patent claims, which describe sophisticated "optimization" and "auction" mechanics, read on the specific algorithms and processes actually implemented in the accused products? The answer will depend on how broadly key claim terms are construed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent (Claim 20)

• The Term: "probabilistic predictive multivariate evaluator"
• Context and Importance: This term appears to describe the core analytical engine of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused products' routing algorithm, whatever its specific implementation, falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it combines multiple potentially limiting concepts: "probabilistic," "predictive," and "multivariate."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the invention integrates various "intelligent functions" including, but not limited to, "optimizations, artificial neural network implementation, probabilistic and stochastic process calculations, fuzzy logic, Bayesian logic and hierarchical Markov models" (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 18:35-42). This language could support a broad definition covering any system that uses multiple inputs to make a forward-looking, non-deterministic routing decision.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of optimizing a "cost-utility function" based on specific factors like agent cost, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 24:1-14, 53-64). A defendant might argue that the term "evaluator" is limited by these embodiments to a system that performs these specific types of economic or utility-based calculations.

’748 Patent (Claim 1)

• The Term: "probabilistic function"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the calculation used to evaluate and pair a request with an available partner. The infringement analysis for this patent will likely hinge on whether the accused system's decision-making process can be characterized as being dependent on a "probabilistic function."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification equates the "intelligent functions" of the system with a range of technologies, including "probabilistic and stochastic process calculations," suggesting the term is not confined to a single type of probability model (US 10,491,748 B1, col. 18:35-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes a system for "maximizing an aggregate utility," and the specification details optimizing a "cost-utility function" (US 10,491,748 B1, Abstract; col. 23:43-52). This could support an argument that the "probabilistic function" must be one that is used in the context of such a utility or cost-based optimization.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant distributes "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, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: As the complaint relies entirely on unfiled exhibits to detail its infringement allegations, a key question is what technical evidence Plaintiff will introduce to demonstrate that the accused products' routing systems actually perform the specific "multifactorial," "probabilistic," and "auction-like" optimizations required by the patent claims.
2. A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim terms "probabilistic predictive multivariate evaluator" and "probabilistic function," which are described in the context of complex cost-utility optimizations, be construed broadly enough to cover the specific routing algorithms implemented in the accused products, or will they be limited to the particular economic models detailed in the patent specifications?