Patent Armory Inc v. Delta Air Lines Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01315, D. Del., 12/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services 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 economic principles and multifactorial analysis to match incoming communications with available agents or resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-07	Priority Date for ’979, ’086, and ’420 Patents
2006-04-03	Priority Date for ’253 and ’748 Patents
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2007-09-11	U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2019-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 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 inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as static groupings of agents and simple first-in-first-out call queuing, which can lead to mismatches where under-skilled or over-skilled agents handle calls, reducing transactional throughput. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• 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 performing an "automated optimization." This optimization considers not only the skill-based fit but also the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for a different, potentially more valuable match. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:9-24). The system analyzes various factors to determine an optimal routing decision, as depicted in the flowchart of Figure 1. (’420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for call centers to dynamically allocate resources based on a global optimization of economic and skill-based factors, moving beyond simpler, less efficient routing rules. (’420 Patent, col. 21:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims," but does not identify specific claims. (Compl. ¶15). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a plurality of second entities, representing 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 second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family as the ’420 patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of inefficient communication routing in environments like call centers. (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented solution: The invention describes a system that routes communications by representing both sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility." An optimal routing is then determined by "maximizing an aggregate utility" across potential pairings, which may involve considering long-term factors such as agent training in addition to immediate efficiency. (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:8-24).
• Technical Importance: The system allows for intelligent routing decisions to be made at a low level within the communications architecture itself, integrating complex, utility-based calculations directly into the routing process rather than relying on a separate high-level system. (’748 Patent, col. 25:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not identify specific claims. (Compl. ¶21). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006. (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an early patent in the asserted family, discloses a system for intelligent call routing. It describes computing an "optimum agent selection" based on a received "communications classification" and a database of agent skill scores, and then directly controlling the routing of the call based on that computation. (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in the incorporated but unattached Exhibit 8. (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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

• 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 describes a communications system where characteristics of communications and potential targets are stored, and an optimal target is determined via a "combinatorial optimization." The optimization considers a cost-benefit analysis and may be influenced by factors like predicted target availability. (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in the incorporated but unattached Exhibit 9. (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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

• 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 describes a method for matching entities by defining scalar data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for second entities. An automated optimization is then performed with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a second entity unavailable for an alternate match. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "exemplary claims." (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in the incorporated but unattached Exhibit 10. (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

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 purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide any factual description of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. The pleading states only in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance or market positioning are made. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not provided with the filed document. Therefore, no claim chart table can be presented. The complaint’s narrative infringement theory for each patent is limited to conclusory statements incorporating these missing exhibits by reference.

For the ’420 Patent, the complaint alleges that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’420 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’420 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶17).

For the ’748 Patent, the complaint alleges that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’748 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’748 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶26). Similar conclusory allegations are made for the remaining patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint provides no specific factual allegations linking any feature of an accused product to any claim limitation, a primary point of contention will be the evidentiary basis for the infringement claims. The pleading's reliance on incorporating non-public exhibits raises the question of what facts support the allegation that Defendant's products perform the claimed methods.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused products perform the specific "automated optimization" with respect to "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as required by claims of the ’420 and ’086 Patents, or the "maximizing an aggregate utility" required by claims of the ’748 Patent. The dispute may focus on whether the accused products employ a fundamentally different and more conventional routing logic that does not meet these specific claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the claimed invention in the ’420 and ’086 Patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case will likely depend on whether the accused products' routing logic can be characterized as performing this specific, two-part economic calculation, as opposed to a more general or conventional skill-based routing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses that the "target of a communication is defined by an algorithm, rather than a predetermined address or simple rule," which may support a broader interpretation not tied to a single, rigid formula. (’420 Patent, col. 18:15-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed mathematical formula for an exemplary optimization, including terms for agent cost, anticipated change in agent value, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost, which could be cited to argue that the claim requires a similarly complex, multi-factor economic analysis. (’420 Patent, col. 24:52-58).

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

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claims of the ’748 Patent. The definition will be critical in determining whether an accused system that selects a "good" or "better" routing option, but does not provably find the single optimal one across all possibilities, meets this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract frames the invention broadly as determining an "optimal routing" by maximizing utility, which could be read to encompass various methods of achieving a best-available outcome. (’748 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed combinatorial analysis of all possible agent-caller pairings to find the one with the maximum value, which could support a narrower construction that requires a global optimization rather than a merely localized or heuristic one. (’748 Patent, col. 45:1-12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The stated basis 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. ¶24-25, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and attached claim charts, which could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).

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

• A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that contains no factual allegations of infringement in its body and instead relies entirely on incorporation of unattached exhibits provide sufficient notice to the defendant under the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal?
• A key technical question will be one of functional operation: what is the actual mechanism by which the accused products route communications, and does this mechanism perform the specific, multi-factor economic optimizations (e.g., maximizing "economic surplus" while accounting for "opportunity cost") required by the asserted claims, or does it operate on a different, non-infringing principle?