Patent Armory Inc v. Biobot Analytics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Biobot Analytics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01311, D. Del., 12/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based matching systems used in telecommunications.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications networks, such as call centers, by using algorithms to match incoming communications with the most appropriate available agents or resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	Priority Date for ’979 Patent and ’253 Patent
2003-03-07	Priority Date for ’420 Patent and ’086 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
2024-12-04	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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction", issued March 19, 2019 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of managing call centers, which must efficiently handle high volumes of electronic customer contacts while balancing service quality with resource utilization (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Traditional methods like first-come-first-served routing can lead to inefficiencies such as long wait times or idle agents (’420 Patent, col. 2:42-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by performing a multifactorial optimization. This process functions like an auction, where the system analyzes various parameters for both the caller and available agents to determine an optimal pairing based on maximizing an "economic surplus" and considering the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to that call (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents a move beyond simple queuing logic to a more sophisticated, economically-driven model for resource allocation in telecommunications systems (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but refers to "exemplary method claims" of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities.
  • 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 the plurality of second entities, representing their respective characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint states that Defendant infringes "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

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 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiencies in conventional call centers, where routing decisions are often simplistic and the "intelligence" for complex routing is externalized to high-level software, creating potential processing latencies (’748 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system where the intelligent control logic is integrated at a low level, within the computer telephony integrated (CTI) system itself (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-61). The system receives communications, identifies available resources (e.g., agents), calculates scores for potential pairings, estimates an "expected economic value" for each pairing, and assigns the communication based on that value (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can factor in training value and other complex variables, as shown in the flowchart of Figure 1 (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aims to reduce the communication bandwidth and transactional load on separate, high-level management systems, thereby improving the real-time performance and resilience of the routing process (’748 Patent, col. 25:50-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing system with a processor and memory.
  • The system is configured to receive a plurality of communications.
  • It identifies a plurality of available resources for association with a communication.
  • It calculates a respective score associated with each available resource based on its availability state.
  • It estimates an expected economic value for associating a communication with a resource, dependent on the score and a value function.
  • It assigns the communication to a resource based on the estimated expected economic value.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

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 April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communications management system that intelligently routes calls in a call center. It utilizes a database of agent skills and call classifications to compute an "optimum agent selection" and directly controls the routing of the call (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not identify any specific product features accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶30).

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 September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for intelligent call routing that determines an optimal agent based on a combinatorial optimization of various factors. The system considers both call characteristics and agent characteristics, including skill levels and training needs, to make a routing decision (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which product features are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶36).

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 September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: The technology is a method for matching entities by performing an automated optimization. The system defines parameters for a first entity (e.g., a caller) and a plurality of second entities (e.g., agents) and calculates an optimal match based on economic surplus and opportunity cost, analogous to an auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific product features accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 36, 42).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim chart exhibits incorporated by reference; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48). The complaint therefore provides no description of the functionality, operation, or market context of any accused instrumentality.
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents-in-suit but does not provide claim charts or a narrative infringement theory in the body of the complaint. Instead, it incorporates by reference Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which allegedly contain charts comparing exemplary claims to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). As these exhibits were not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the complaint. The infringement allegations are purely conclusory, stating that the unnamed products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

• ’420 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis.

• ’748 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A principal question for the court will be whether the scope of the asserted claims, which are rooted in the technical field of telecommunications and call center management, can be construed to cover the products or services of the Defendant, Biobot Analytics, Inc., a company operating in the field of wastewater-based epidemiology. This raises a fundamental question of technical applicability.
  • Technical Questions: Without identification of any accused product or functionality, it is an open question what evidence the Plaintiff will proffer to demonstrate that the Defendant's instrumentalities perform the specific functions required by the claims, such as conducting an "auction" (’420 Patent, cl. 1), estimating an "expected economic value" for a communication (’748 Patent, cl. 1), or performing "intelligent call routing" (’979 Patent, Title).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "auction"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent title and is central to the method described in claim 1, which requires an "automated optimization" that functions as a matching auction. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the Defendant's processes can be characterized as an "auction."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the method as "matching a first entity with at least one second entity... performing an automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Abstract). A party might argue this supports a broad definition of "auction" to include any automated optimization or resource allocation process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background of the Invention section extensively discusses call centers, Automatic Call Distribution (ACD), and agent routing (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-67). This context may support a narrower construction limited to processes for allocating resources, such as human agents, in a telecommunications environment.

’748 Patent

• The Term: "communications routing system"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the statutory class of the invention claimed in independent claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires the accused instrumentality to be a "communications routing system."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the system in functional terms: receiving communications, identifying resources, calculating scores, and assigning the communications (’748 Patent, cl. 1). A party could argue that any system performing these abstract data-directing functions qualifies, regardless of the technical field.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly situates the invention in the field of "computer integrated telecommunications systems" and describes its application in call centers that use technologies like PBX and ACD (’748 Patent, col. 1:12-16, col. 2:25-44). This suggests the term may be limited to systems that route telephonic or digital network communications.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on the Defendant distributing "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 that the service of the complaint itself constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). This allegation appears aimed at supporting a claim for willful infringement based on the Defendant's conduct after the complaint was filed.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the context of call center telecommunications, such as "auction", "communications routing system", and "economic surplus", be construed to cover processes and services in the field of wastewater analytics? The apparent technical mismatch between the patented inventions and the Defendant's line of business suggests that claim construction will be a central battleground.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual basis: given the complaint's lack of specific allegations tying any of the Defendant's actual products or services to the patent claims, a central issue will be what evidence, if any, the Plaintiff can produce to support its conclusory infringement theory. This raises the question of whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement.