Patent Armory Inc v. Del Taco Restaurants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01316, D. Del., 12/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and communication systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The technology domain is automated call distribution and intelligent routing for call centers, a field significant for optimizing customer service operations and workforce management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history involving the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit appear to originate from a common patent family.

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 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management, which struggles to balance high-quality customer service with efficient resource use, particularly when agents have varying skill levels (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). It identifies the "under-skilled agent problem" and the "over-skilled agent problem" as sources of transactional inefficiency (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that matches a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with an optimal "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) from a pool of available entities (’420 Patent, Abstract). This matching is not based on simple queuing but on a multifactorial optimization that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, as illustrated in the system diagram in Figure 3 (’420 Patent, Fig. 3; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for dynamic, global optimization of call center resources, moving beyond static, skill-based routing rules to consider economic and opportunity costs in real time (’420 Patent, col. 6:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core 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 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 ’748 patent, as part of the same family, addresses the same problems of inefficient call routing in complex call center environments as the ’420 Patent (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path by representing both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then seeks to maximize the "aggregate utility" of all matches, considering factors such as agent training in its cost-utility functions (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This utility-based framework provides a flexible method for intelligent routing that can adapt to long-term strategic goals, such as agent development, rather than focusing solely on short-term transactional efficiency (’748 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 311-312).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing system comprising a processor and memory.
  • 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 respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• 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: This patent, an early member of the asserted family, discloses a telephony control system for intelligent call routing. It addresses the need for more sophisticated call distribution than traditional first-in-first-out systems by using skill-based criteria to match callers with appropriate agents.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology, but does not identify specific products or features (Compl. ¶30).

• 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: A continuation of the '979 patent family, this patent further describes intelligent call routing systems. The technology focuses on optimizing call center operations by matching callers to agents based on various characteristics beyond simple queuing.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).

• 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: This patent, a direct predecessor to the '420 patent, discloses a system for matching entities using an auction-based framework. It introduces the concepts of optimizing for economic surplus and opportunity cost to improve upon standard skill-based routing.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent, but provides no specific details (Compl. ¶42).

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" of Defendant Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (Compl. ¶15). Based on the defendant's business, the accused instrumentality is presumably its customer service call center or related communication systems.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory allegations that the unidentified products practice the claimed technology by incorporating by reference non-provided exhibits (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement by incorporating by reference non-provided claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). It does not contain a narrative description of the accused functionality sufficient for summary or for the creation of claim chart tables.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "auction," as used in the '420 and '086 patents in the context of routing telecommunications, can be construed to cover the processes used by Defendant's customer service systems. A related question for the '420 and '748 Patents is whether Defendant's systems perform an "automated optimization" with respect to an "economic surplus" or "aggregate utility," or if they employ a simpler, non-economic routing logic.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide factual support for how Defendant’s systems operate. A key question for the court will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that Defendant’s systems define "multivalued scalar data" for callers and agents and perform the specific multifactorial optimizations required by the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "economic surplus" ('420 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed optimization process. Its construction will likely determine whether infringement requires a sophisticated, quantitative financial calculation or could be satisfied by a more general improvement in efficiency. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a critical point of novelty differentiating the invention from standard skill-based routing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function" generally, which a party could argue encompasses any process that improves operational efficiency, thereby creating a surplus of value (’420 Patent, col. 23:50-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains the cost-utility function by referencing specific economic factors such as agent salaries, training costs, and opportunity costs, suggesting that "economic surplus" requires a specific, multi-faceted financial calculation, not merely a qualitative benefit (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-20).

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the objective of the claimed routing system. The dispute may turn on whether "maximizing" requires a global optimization of all pending communications against all available targets, or if a series of locally optimal decisions would suffice. The definition of "utility" will also be critical.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any routing system that intelligently matches a source to a target based on predicted characteristics is inherently designed to maximize the "utility" of the connection, even if the algorithm is simple (’748 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent patent family discusses complex cost-utility functions that balance short-term and long-term call center goals, including the "utility of agent training" (’420 Patent, Fig. 2). This suggests that "maximizing an aggregate utility" requires a holistic optimization that considers multiple, potentially competing objectives across the entire system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the '748 and '086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶¶24, 45). The complaint refers to non-provided exhibits for support (Compl. ¶¶24, 45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the '748 and '086 Patents (Compl. ¶¶23, 44). These allegations appear to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations regarding the accused systems, a central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that Defendant’s customer service infrastructure actually performs the sophisticated, multi-factor, real-time optimizations and auction-based matching required by the patent claims.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely depend on whether claim terms rooted in complex telecommunications and economic optimization theory—such as "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "maximizing an aggregate utility"—can be construed broadly enough to read on the potentially simpler routing systems operated by a quick-service restaurant.