Patent Armory Inc v. Corkcicle LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Corkcicle, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00026, D. Del., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's unidentified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and economically optimized matching of entities in telecommunications systems, such as call centers.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to sophisticated call center management technology, which uses algorithms to optimize the matching of incoming communications with available agents based on skills and economic factors to improve efficiency and customer service.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges 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” (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiencies of conventional call center management, particularly the problems of “under-skilled,” “over-skilled,” and “static grouping” of agents in Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems, which can reduce transactional throughput and efficient resource utilization (ʼ420 Patent, col. 4:35-52).
• 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 defining “multivalued scalar data” for both parties and then “performing an automated optimization” ('420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only skills but also an “economic surplus” of a potential match and the “opportunity cost” of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, as illustrated in the system's cost-utility function logic ('420 Patent, col. 24:41-50; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple skill-based routing to a more dynamic, economically-driven model for optimizing resource allocation in real-time communication environments ('420 Patent, col. 18:5-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least the “exemplary method claims” of the '420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• 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 multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for each of the second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to (i) an economic surplus of a match and (ii) an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
• 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” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, namely the inefficiencies in traditional call center routing systems and the need for more intelligent matching of callers to agents ('748 Patent, col. 1:26-col. 4:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a routing system that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their predicted characteristics and an associated “economic utility” ('748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an “optimal routing” by “maximizing an aggregate utility” across all potential linkages, moving beyond simple one-to-one matching to a global optimization ('748 Patent, col. 25:1-26:2).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for routing communications based on a global, utility-maximizing algorithm rather than on pre-determined addresses or simple, localized rules ('748 Patent, col. 18:14-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing method.
  • Representing, in memory, predicted characteristics and an economic utility for a plurality of communications sources.
  • Representing, in memory, predicted characteristics and an economic utility for a plurality of communications targets.
  • Determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued Apr. 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It comprises an input for receiving a communication's classification, a database of agent skills, and a processor for computing an optimum agent selection based on a cost-benefit optimization, thereby directly controlling the routing of the communication ('979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the '979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's unidentified products infringe by practicing the claimed intelligent call routing technology (Compl. ¶32).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued Sep. 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, sharing a title with the '979 patent, discloses a system for optimizing the matching of communications with available agents. It determines an optimal target based on a combinatorial optimization of various factors, including communication characteristics and agent skills, and is designed to operate within a common computing environment for efficiency ('253 Patent, col. 1:12-2:48).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the '253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's unidentified products of infringing the patent's claims directed to intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086: “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” Issued Sep. 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, sharing a title with the '420 patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining targeting parameters for a first entity and characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities. An automated optimization is then performed based on the economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of making a second entity unavailable for other matches, framing the matching process as an auction-like optimization ('086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the '086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe by practicing the claimed technology for matching entities in an auction (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not specifically identify any accused products or services, referring to them generally as the “Exemplary Defendant Products” (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges infringement through claim charts incorporated by reference as exhibits, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6 and 7) that are not provided. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the available documents. The infringement theory is alleged in conclusory terms, stating that the “Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed” and “satisfy all elements” of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may concern the scope of terms like “auction” ('420 Patent, Claim 1) and “economic utility” ('748 Patent, Claim 1). The patents describe these concepts in the context of call centers. A question for the court may be whether the functionality of the accused products, once identified, can be properly characterized by these terms as they are defined and used within the patent specifications.
  • Technical Questions: Given the absence of technical details about the accused products, a primary evidentiary question will be whether Defendant's systems actually perform the “automated optimization” ('420 Patent, Claim 1) or “maximize an aggregate utility” ('748 Patent, Claim 1) as required by the claims. The complaint's conclusory allegations provide no basis to assess the specific algorithms or functions at issue (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it defines the core computational step for matching entities. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system's process meets the specific requirements of this “optimization,” particularly its reliance on “economic surplus” and “opportunity cost.”
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimization in general terms, such as optimizing a “cost-utility function for long term call center operation,” which could be argued to encompass a wide range of algorithmic decision-making processes ('420 Patent, col. 23:39-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself explicitly links the “automated optimization” to two specific factors: “(i) an economic surplus” and “(ii) an opportunity cost.” A defendant may argue that the term is limited to processes that explicitly calculate or consider these specific economic factors ('420 Patent, col. 28:51-60).

• The Term: “economic utility” (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental metric used for both communications sources and targets, and its maximization is the objective of the claimed routing method. The definition of this term will be critical to determining infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that various business goals, including non-monetary ones like “customer satisfaction,” can be “converted and normalized into economic terms” for use in the optimization, potentially supporting a broad reading of the term ('748 Patent, col. 24:36-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides examples of economic parameters such as “sales volume, profit, or the like,” which may be used to argue that “economic utility” requires a more direct or quantifiable connection to financial metrics than softer, non-economic factors ('748 Patent, col. 24:33-36).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the '748 and '086 patents, the complaint alleges inducement of infringement. This is based on Defendant allegedly distributing “product literature and website materials” that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term “willful.” However, for the '748 and '086 patents, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes “actual knowledge” of infringement, which may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). The allegations for the other three patents are limited to direct infringement.

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be evidentiary: the complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused products and their operation means the case will hinge on whether discovery reveals that Defendant's systems perform the specific, economically-driven “automated optimization” and “utility maximization” functions recited in the patents.
• Definitional Scope: A central dispute will likely be claim construction: can patent terms such as “auction” and “economic utility,” which are rooted in the context of call center agent assignment, be construed broadly enough to encompass the specific functionalities of Defendant's commercial offerings, once those functionalities are known?