DCT

1:24-cv-01309

Patent Armory Inc v. Backcountrycom LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Backcountry.com, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01309, D. Del., 12/04/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of infringement in the district, causing harm to the Plaintiff there.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer communication systems infringe five U.S. patents relating to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the management of communications in environments like call centers, a critical function for e-commerce and customer service operations.
Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit descend from two provisional applications filed in 2002 and 2003, indicating a long history of prosecution and technology development. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	Priority Date for ’979 and ’253 Patents
2003-03-07	Priority Date for ’420 and ’086 Patents
2003-03-07	Application filed for ’979 Patent
2006-03-23	Application filed for ’253 Patent
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11	’253 Patent Issued
2010-03-08	Application filed for ’086 Patent
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issued
2017-10-30	Application filed for ’748 Patent
2017-12-28	Application filed for ’420 Patent
2019-03-19	’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26	’748 Patent Issued
2024-12-04	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” (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiencies of traditional call centers that use simple "first-come-first-served" or "longest-idle-agent" routing, which fail to optimally match callers with appropriately skilled agents, reducing throughput and service quality. (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-43; col. 4:1-13).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated system for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent). It does this by defining parameters for both entities and then performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the best match but also the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making that specific agent unavailable for other potential matches. (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This approach seeks to apply principles of economic optimization and auction theory to the technical problem of call routing, aiming to create a more globally efficient and dynamic matching system than was available with prior static or simple sequential routing rules. (’420 Patent, col. 2:44-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify them, instead incorporating by reference an unprovided claim chart exhibit. (Compl. ¶15, 17-18). Independent claim 1 is representative:
A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity, comprising the steps of:
- defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity;
- defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities, representing characteristic parameters; 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.

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 problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations of conventional call center management in efficiently handling electronic customer contact and balancing service quality with resource utilization. (’748 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that models both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) based on their respective "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing between the two groups by "maximizing an aggregate utility," taking into account the predicted characteristics of both the source and the destination. (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This method moves beyond simple skill-based routing to a more holistic, utility-based optimization, allowing a system to make routing decisions that maximize overall value to the organization rather than just resolving the immediate inquiry. (’748 Patent, col. 23:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but refers to an unprovided claim chart exhibit for specifics. (Compl. ¶21, 26-27). Independent claim 1 is representative:
A communications routing system for routing communications sources to communications targets, comprising:
- representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of the sources, each having an economic utility;
- representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of the targets, each having an economic utility; and
- a communications router determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility.

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

Technology Synopsis: This patent, an ancestor to the others, describes a system for intelligent call routing. It proposes a control system comprising an input for receiving a communication's classification, a database of agent skills, and a processor for computing an optimum agent selection based on the communication classification and agent skills. (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification, referencing an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶30, 32-33).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Defendant products identified in the charts," but provides no specific products or features. (Compl. ¶30).

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

Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the application that led to the ’979 Patent and describes a similar technology. It discloses a communications management system that uses a combinatorial optimization to select an agent based on a "cost benefit optimization," considering both the classification of the communication and the characteristics of the available agents. (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification, referencing an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶36, 38-39).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Defendant products identified in the charts," but provides no specific products or features. (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, a direct ancestor of the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining targeting and characteristic parameters and performing an automated optimization. The optimization is conducted with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" related to the unavailability of the selected entity for an alternate match. (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification, referencing an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶42, 47-48).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Defendant products identified in the charts," but provides no specific products or features. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count." (Compl. ¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details regarding the functionality of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed by" the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). Based on the nature of the patents and the defendant's business, the accused instrumentalities are presumably the customer service systems used by Backcountry.com to route communications from customers to agents. The complaint makes no allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of these systems. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or claim charts for any of the asserted patents. Instead, it incorporates by reference external exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) that were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). The infringement theory is therefore not detailed in the provided document. The general allegation is that Defendant's unidentified products directly infringe by practicing the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the likely nature of an e-commerce customer service system, several potential points of contention may arise.
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’420 and ’086 Patents will be whether Defendant’s system performs an "auction." The infringement analysis may turn on whether a system that uses weighted parameters for routing can be defined as conducting an "auction" as that term is understood in the context of the patents.
- Technical Questions: For all asserted patents, a key technical question will concern the nature of the routing algorithm. Plaintiff's patents claim specific types of "automated optimization" based on concepts like "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility." A likely point of dispute will be whether the accused systems perform these specific, complex economic calculations, or if they employ a more conventional skill-based or rule-based routing logic that does not meet these claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" (from ’420 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core technical contribution alleged in the ’420 and ’086 Patents. The viability of the infringement claim will depend heavily on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any value-based routing or narrowly to require specific calculations rooted in formal economic or auction theory.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the concept in general terms of "optimizing a cost-utility function" and achieving "business goals," which could support construing the term to cover a wide range of value-based calculations. (’420 Patent, col. 23:41-43).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title, abstract, and detailed description repeatedly use the term "auction." A defendant may argue that this context limits the scope of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" to their specific meanings within auction theory, as distinct from general cost-benefit analysis. (’420 Patent, Title; Abstract).
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 whether the accused system's routing decisions are proven to be the result of a process that truly "maximizes" a calculated "aggregate utility" for the entire system, as opposed to simply making a locally optimal choice for each individual communication.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "utility" in broad terms that include non-monetary goals like "customer satisfaction," which could support a construction that does not require strict financial optimization. (’748 Patent, col. 24:7-11).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the invention as determining an "optimal routing" by maximizing this value, suggesting a requirement for a global optimization process that considers all available sources and targets to find the mathematically maximal outcome, a potentially higher bar than simple sequential matching. (’748 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant allegedly distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" and selling products to customers for use in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶24-25, 45-46).
Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, but bases this knowledge on "the service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts." (Compl. ¶23, 44). This suggests an attempt to establish a basis for post-suit willful infringement rather than alleging pre-suit knowledge.

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents' specialized terms, drawn from economics and auction theory (e.g., “auction,” “economic surplus,” “maximizing an aggregate utility”), be construed broadly enough to read on the likely functionality of a modern, but potentially conventional, e-commerce customer service routing system?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what factual evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-factorial optimization processes required by the claims, as opposed to simpler, more common routing methods based on agent availability and static skill assignments?
A central procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: given that the complaint provides no factual detail regarding the operation of the accused systems and relies entirely on unprovided exhibits to substantiate its infringement theory, an early issue for the court may be whether the complaint satisfies the plausibility standard for patent infringement allegations.