Patent Armory Inc v. Esler Companies LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Esler Companies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00028, D. Del., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is organized under the laws of Delaware and maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control systems.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of computer-telephony integration (CTI), specifically technologies for optimizing the management of call centers by intelligently matching incoming communications with available agents based on economic and skill-based criteria.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management, where Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems use simple routing rules (e.g., first-come-first-served) that fail to optimally match callers with agents, leading to problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-34).
• 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 skill-based criteria but also economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:5-22:3). This allows for a more dynamic and globally optimized routing decision than traditional systems provide.
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a move toward more sophisticated, economically-driven resource allocation in telecommunications, aiming to improve overall call center efficiency beyond simple queue management (’420 Patent, col. 27:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims," without specifying any particular claim (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core method.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for each of a plurality of second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match and 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 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses performance latencies in computer-telephony systems where intelligent routing decisions are externalized to high-level management software, which can be slow and inefficient, especially when running on non-deterministic operating systems (’748 Patent, col. 2:6-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an architectural solution where the intelligent routing algorithm is integrated into the low-level communications management system itself. This allows a target for a communication to be resolved via an "optimizing algorithm" at the CTI layer, rather than by a simple rule or a call to a separate, high-level system, thereby reducing latency and improving real-time performance (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-62; col. 25:11-26:2).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the real-time performance of intelligent call routing by moving the decision-making logic closer to the switching hardware and away from potentially slow, high-level business software applications (’748 Patent, col. 19:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without identifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • An input for receiving a call classification vector.
  • A table of agent characteristic vectors.
  • A processor for determining an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence between the call classification vector and the table of agent characteristic vectors.
  • The processor also controls the call routing in dependence on that determination.
• 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 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an early member of the asserted patent family, describes a system for intelligent call routing in a telephony environment. It discloses a communications management system that uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" based on a received communication classification and a database of agent skills, and then directly controls the routing of the communication.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶30).

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 is related to the ’979 patent and similarly discloses a system for intelligent call routing. It focuses on a combinatorial optimization of a cost-benefit function to determine the optimal target for a communication, and can consider factors such as predicted agent availability.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶36).

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, a direct predecessor to the '420 patent, describes a method for matching entities in an auction-based framework. It claims a method of defining data parameters for a first entity (e.g., caller) and multiple second entities (e.g., agents) and performing an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" of a match.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts incorporated by reference as exhibits (Compl. ¶¶15, 17, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or claim charts within its body. Instead, it incorporates by reference external exhibits (Exhibits 6 through 10) that allegedly contain claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48). As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint's narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any particular product feature to any specific claim limitation. A central question for the court will be whether discovery uncovers facts sufficient to support the infringement allegations made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶15, 30, 36, 42).
  • Technical Questions: Assuming discovery provides some basis for the claims, a likely technical dispute will concern the nature of the accused routing system. Key questions may include whether the system performs a multi-factorial "optimization" as claimed in the '420 and ’086 patents, or whether it employs a simpler, non-infringing rules-based engine.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the auction-based patents ('420 and '086), distinguishing the claimed method from simpler, pre-determined routing rules. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its system uses a conventional rules-based engine that does not perform an "optimization" in the manner claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that "intelligent functions" can include a wide range of techniques, such as "optimizations, artificial neural network implementation, probabilistic and stochastic process calculations, fuzzy logic, Bayesian logic and hierarchical Markov models," which could support a broad definition of the term (’420 Patent, col. 18:35-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and claim 1 itself explicitly tie the "automated optimization" to specific economic criteria: "an economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." A defendant may argue that to be an "optimization" under the patent, the accused system must specifically calculate and weigh these economic factors (’420 Patent, Abstract).

The Term: "an integral system" (’748 Patent, Claim 15)

• Context and Importance: The '748 patent family distinguishes itself from the prior art by integrating the intelligent routing functions at a low level of the system architecture. The definition of "integral" will be critical to determining whether a defendant's system, which may use distinct software modules for routing and switching, falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as providing an "architectural change in the computer telephony integrated (CTI) systems, wherein the CTI host takes on greater responsibilities." This could suggest that any system where the CTI host performs intelligent tasks, even if through distinct software processes, is "integral" (’748 Patent, col. 18:60-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts its approach with high-level CRM systems and emphasizes execution "in conjunction with the low level CTI process" to reduce latency (Compl. ¶'748 Patent, col. 26:35-43). This language could be used to argue that "integral" requires the routing logic to be part of the same low-level software process that manages the telephony hardware, excluding systems that make calls to separate applications.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '748 and '086 patents. The allegations are based on the defendant allegedly distributing "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). The complaint also asserts knowledge and intent for inducement "At least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶25, 46).
• Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the '748 and '086 patents, stating that service of the complaint itself provides such knowledge (Compl. ¶23, 44). This allegation, combined with the prayer for relief seeking a declaration that the case is "exceptional" (Compl. p. 11, ¶N(i)), forms the basis for a potential claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint is devoid of factual detail regarding infringement and relies entirely on conclusory allegations and un-filed exhibits. A threshold question will be whether discovery yields sufficient evidence to support the bare assertion that an unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Product" practices every element of the asserted claims.
• A central technical question will be one of algorithmic functionality: Does the accused system's routing logic perform a genuine "automated optimization" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," as required by the auction-based patents, or does it operate on a simpler, non-infringing rules-based framework?
• A key architectural question for the '748 patent will be one of system integration: Is the accused routing intelligence part of an "integral system" operating at the low-level CTI layer as claimed, or is it a distinct, high-level application that is architecturally separate from the core telephony functions, potentially placing it outside the scope of the claims?