Patent Armory Inc v. Employbridge Holding Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: EmployBridge Holding Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00027, D. Del., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, which is critical for balancing operational efficiency with customer service quality.
• Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, is mentioned in the complaint.

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 "'420 Patent"). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management, which struggles to balance customer service quality with the efficient use of resources, particularly when agents and transactions have varying characteristics. (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., a call center agent) by performing an "automated optimization." This optimization considers not only skill-based matching but also an "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, treating the matching process like a real-time auction. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-10). Figure 3 illustrates the system architecture, where call classification vectors are processed to route calls to an optimal agent via a call router. (’420 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This economic optimization approach provided a more dynamic and potentially more efficient method for resource allocation in complex communication environments than static, rule-based systems. (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying any particular claim number. (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and requires:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a first entity (representing inferential targeting parameters).
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of 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 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019 (the "'748 Patent"). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations and inefficiencies of traditional call routing systems in complex call center environments. (’748 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
• The Patented Solution: The patented method involves routing communications by optimizing a "cost-utility function" that considers both short-term efficiency and long-term call center operations, including factors such as agent training. (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can operate in different modes, using simple skill-based routing when the call center is near capacity, but employing more complex, long-term optimization that values training opportunities when capacity allows. (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 36:26-41).
• Technical Importance: The invention's focus on long-term utility, including the economic value of agent training, represented a more sophisticated approach to call center management than systems focused solely on immediate call-handling metrics. (’748 Patent, col. 27:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without identifying them. (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and requires:
  • Predicting characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006 (the "'979 Patent"). (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an antecedent to the lead patents, addresses inefficient call center routing. It discloses a system that receives a "communications classification," accesses a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and computes an optimum agent selection to control call routing. (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe, referencing charts in the unprovided Exhibit 8. (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 (the "'253 Patent"). (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to intelligent call routing in call centers. The claimed invention involves a combinatorial optimization of potential pairings between callers and agents to determine a routing that maximizes a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness metric. (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe, referencing charts in the unprovided Exhibit 9. (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 (the "'086 Patent"). (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes matching entities using an auction framework. The method involves defining parameters for each entity and performing an automated optimization based on the economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of forgoing alternative matches. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe, referencing charts in the unprovided Exhibit 10. (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim charts (Exhibits 6-10) which were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It alleges that the unprovided claim charts demonstrate that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance are made.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'420 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’420 Patent but provides no narrative theory of infringement in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶15). Instead, it incorporates by reference "the claim charts of Exhibit 6," which were not provided with the public filing. (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶17).

'748 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and induced infringement of the ’748 Patent, but its allegations are similarly conclusory. (Compl. ¶21, ¶25). The complaint's infringement theory is contained entirely within "the claim charts of Exhibit 7," which were not provided. (Compl. ¶27).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the '420 and '086 Patents will be whether the functionality of the accused products falls within the scope of claim terms such as "auction" and "economic surplus." The dispute may turn on whether a general-purpose resource allocation system can be characterized as an "auction" as that term is used in the patents.
• Technical Questions: For all asserted patents, a key technical question will be whether the accused products actually perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" or "cost-utility function" required by the claims. The complaint provides no specific facts regarding the operational logic of the accused products that would allow for an analysis of this question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This phrase appears in independent claim 1 and captures the core of the asserted invention. The definition of "economic surplus" will be critical, as it may determine whether the defendant's system, which presumably performs some type of matching, practices the specific economic-based optimization claimed by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the optimization may be used to achieve goals like "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which could support a construction of "economic surplus" that is not strictly limited to monetary gain but includes broader business efficiencies. (’420 Patent, col. 4:8-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated use of the term "auction" in the patent's title and abstract, along with the specific mention of "economic surplus," could support a narrower construction requiring a more formal, market-based calculation rather than a general-purpose optimization. (’420 Patent, Abstract).

For the ’748 Patent

• The Term: "optimizing a cost-utility function"
• Context and Importance: This phrase from independent claim 1 is central to the infringement analysis. Its construction will determine the types of routing algorithms that fall within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "cost-utility function" as encompassing a wide range of factors, including "long term call center operation" and agent training, suggesting a broad definition that covers more than just immediate call-handling metrics. (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 36:31-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific multi-part formula for the cost function, including terms for agent value, transaction value, and opportunity cost. A defendant may argue that the term "cost-utility function" should be limited to algorithms that consider these specific types of factors. (’748 Patent, col. 24:52-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "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, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, but bases this knowledge solely on "The service of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-suit willfulness only, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents are alleged.

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

• A central issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the patent claims, which describe routing communications based on an "auction" framework with "economic surplus" ('420, '086 Patents) or a "cost-utility function" ('748, '979, '253 Patents), be construed to cover the actual operational logic of the accused products, or do those products employ a fundamentally different, non-infringing matching algorithm?
• A key evidentiary question will be what specific facts and evidence Plaintiff can develop to support its infringement allegations. The complaint's exclusive reliance on unprovided exhibits to identify the accused products, describe their functionality, and map claim elements creates a significant burden for the Plaintiff to substantiate its claims during discovery and expert analysis.