Patent Armory Inc v. Carbon Health Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Carbon Health Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01312, D. Del., 12/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a telecommunications context.
• Technical Context: The technology domain is automated call distribution (ACD) and computer-telephony integration (CTI), which are critical for an optimizing the operational efficiency and service quality of modern call centers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

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

• Patent Identification: 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 section describes the inefficiencies of traditional call center management, where simple routing logic like first-come-first-served or static team assignments leads to mismatches between caller needs and agent skills, referred to as the "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" problems (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of an incoming communication (a first entity) to an available agent (a second entity) as a dynamic optimization problem or an auction. Rather than using static rules, the system defines "inferential targeting parameters" for the caller and "characteristic parameters" for the agents, and then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" generated and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:24-37). Figure 3 illustrates the architecture, showing call classification vectors and agent characteristics being fed into a processor that controls a call router (’420 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economically-driven model for optimizing telecommunication resource allocation in real-time. (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary method claims without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • 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 respective characteristic parameters; and
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and 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 reserves the right to assert additional 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of call routing systems that focus only on immediate or short-term efficiency. Such systems fail to account for long-term operational goals, such as the strategic value of training less-skilled agents on live calls to improve the center's overall future capability (’748 Patent, col. 27:8-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility." This utility function considers the predicted characteristics and "economic utility" of both the communication sources (e.g., callers) and the communication targets (e.g., agents). As shown in Figure 1, the system can dynamically switch between a short-term, skill-based routing model (when the call center is near capacity) and a long-term optimization that incorporates factors like agent training (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention integrates long-term strategic objectives, such as workforce development, directly into the real-time, low-level logic of a communications router. (’748 Patent, col. 27:8-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications routing system comprising a processor configured to:
  • Represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility;
  • Represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility; and
  • Determine an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

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

• 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 telephony control system aimed at improving upon traditional call routing. The invention involves receiving a communication, classifying it, accessing a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and using a processor to compute an optimal agent selection to directly control the routing of the communication.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent but provides no specific feature breakdown (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

• 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, related to the ’979 patent, discloses a system for intelligent call routing. It focuses on using a combinatorial optimization of a cost-benefit function to determine an optimal target for a communication based on the communication's classification and the characteristics and predicted availability of potential targets.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent but provides no specific feature breakdown (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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

• 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: This patent, related to the ’420 patent, describes a method for matching entities by conducting an auction. The method comprises defining inferential targeting parameters for a first entity and characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities, then performing an automated optimization based on the economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of making a second entity unavailable for other matches.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent but provides no specific feature breakdown (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. The pleading alleges that the products practice the claimed technology and refers to non-public exhibits for the specific element-by-element comparisons (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No specific product names, features, or market context are described in the body of the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of all five patents-in-suit and indirect infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 25, 30, 36, 42, 46). The complaint states that detailed infringement comparisons are provided in Exhibits 6 through 10; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). The narrative infringement theory presented is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’420 and ’086 Patents is the scope of terms like "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost." The dispute may center on whether the accused system performs a formal economic optimization that meets these definitions or a less complex, rule-based matching process. For the ’748 Patent, a similar question may arise regarding the meaning of "maximizing an aggregate utility."
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be what evidence exists that the accused products actually perform the specific optimization or auction-based functions required by the claims. The complaint does not provide facts about the accused products' operation, raising the question of whether their underlying algorithms match the patented methods or are fundamentally different in their technical approach.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the method claimed in the ’420 Patent. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product's functionality constitutes a true "optimization" or merely an automated, rule-based selection process. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes a computationally intensive, multi-factor analysis from simpler, predetermined logic.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in the context of overcoming the limitations of simple routing, noting a need for "evaluation of complex algorithms and real time optimizations" (’420 Patent, col. 2:58-60). This language may support a construction that covers any automated process more sophisticated than first-in-first-out.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires optimization "with respect to an economic surplus" and "an opportunity cost." The specification further details complex "cost-utility" functions, suggesting that "optimization" requires a specific type of mathematical, economic calculation, not just any automated decision-making process (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:22-24:57).

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core function of the claimed routing system processor. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system performs a function that can be characterized as "maximizing" a single "aggregate" value. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue that a system using a series of hierarchical, non-compensatory rules does not infringe because it never calculates or maximizes a unitary "aggregate utility."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes determining an "optimal routing," which could be interpreted broadly to mean any method that achieves a "best" outcome among available choices (’748 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed mathematical formula representing a multi-variable cost function, including terms for agent cost, anticipated value of the transaction, and opportunity cost. This suggests "maximizing an aggregate utility" requires a formal, multi-factor computational process that resolves these disparate inputs into a single value to be maximized (’748 Patent, col. 24:50-57).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged distribution of "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes (Compl. ¶24, ¶45). The complaint alleges that Defendant acted "actively, knowingly, and intentionally" since at least the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶25, ¶46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation appears to establish a basis for potential enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement, rather than pre-suit willfulness.

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic correspondence: As the complaint withholds the operative facts of infringement in non-public exhibits, the case will depend on evidence demonstrating whether the accused products' algorithms actually perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" or "auction" mechanisms required by the patents, or if they utilize a non-infringing, conventional rules-based engine.
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: The viability of the infringement claims will likely turn on the construction of terms such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility." The key question for the court will be whether these terms, which carry specific meanings in the fields of economics and optimization theory, can be construed broadly enough to read on the accused functionality, or if a narrower construction would place the accused products outside the claims' scope.
• A threshold procedural question may arise regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings: Given the complaint’s reliance on incorporating non-public exhibits by reference and its lack of specific factual allegations describing how the accused products operate, the court may need to address whether the complaint meets the plausibility standards for patent infringement under federal pleading rules.