Patent Armory Inc v. Expivia Interaction Marketing Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Expivia Interaction Marketing Group Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00029, E.D. Pa., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s call center 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 the routing of communications, such as telephone calls in a call center, to the most appropriate agent based on factors like agent skills, costs, and anticipated call outcomes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The patents asserted belong to two distinct families with different priority dates.

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 inherent in traditional call centers that use simple routing logic like "first-come-first-served" or static "queue/team" models. These legacy systems can lead to mismatches, such as routing a complex call to an under-skilled agent or a simple call to an over-skilled agent, which reduces transactional throughput and customer satisfaction. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as an economic optimization problem, akin to an auction. It matches a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with the optimal "second entity" (e.g., an available agent) by performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match" and considering the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential calls. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:3-14). This moves beyond simple skill matching to a more dynamic, economic-based decision process.
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to replace static, rule-based call distribution with a dynamic, multi-factorial optimization system that can adapt to changing call loads and agent availability in real-time. (’420 Patent, col. 21:4-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary method claims" but does not identify specific claims asserted. (Compl. ¶15). The text of the patent's claims was not provided in the complaint or its exhibits, precluding a detailed breakdown of claim elements.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '420 Patent, the background of the '748 Patent addresses the limitations of conventional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems in call centers. It notes that simple "longest-idle-agent" or FIFO queueing approaches are inefficient when agents have varying skill sets and calls have different requirements. (’748 Patent, col. 3:12-4:34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that routes communications by representing both the "predicted characteristics" of communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents), each having an "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the predicted characteristics of the matched entities. (’748 Patent, Abstract). This method relies on a cost-utility function that can incorporate factors like training value and long-term operational goals, as shown in the patent's flowcharts. (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a more sophisticated routing logic that can be integrated at a low level within a communications management system, allowing for real-time, contextually interpreted routing decisions rather than relying on high-level database systems with greater latency. (’748 Patent, col. 25:15-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted. (Compl. ¶21). The text of the patent's claims was not provided in the complaint or its exhibits, precluding a detailed breakdown of claim elements.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• 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. The system receives a communication with an associated classification, accesses a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection," thereby directly controlling the routing of the communication. (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and "exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology. (Compl. ¶30).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

• 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, related to the ’979 Patent, discloses a system for optimizing call routing by performing a "combinatorial optimization" to determine the best match between an incoming communication (defined by a classification vector) and an available agent (defined by a characteristic vector). (’253 Patent, col. 32:50-57). The system controls call routing based on this determination.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and "exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of infringing the patent. (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 Sep. 27, 2016. (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining their characteristics with "multivalued scalar data" and performing an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of that match. (’086 Patent, Abstract). The system treats the matching and routing of communications as an economic auction.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed methods. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify any specific product or service by name. (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and states that infringement details are provided in claim charts attached as exhibits. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body. Instead, it incorporates by reference Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which allegedly contain charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). As these exhibits were not provided, a summary of the narrative infringement theory is presented below.

Narrative Infringement Theory

• For all five patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 36, 42). It further alleges that Defendant's employees directly infringe by "internally test[ing] and us[ing] these Exemplary Products." (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 31, 37, 43).
• For the '748 and '086 Patents, the complaint also alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief 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." (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 45).

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Sufficiency: A primary question will be whether the complaint's conclusory allegations, which rely entirely on non-provided exhibits, provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal.
• Scope Questions: Assuming the case proceeds, a key dispute may arise over the scope of terms like "auction," "economic surplus," and "cost-utility function" as used in the patents. The analysis will question whether these terms, which are described in the context of complex economic optimizations, can be construed to cover the actual functionality of Defendant's call routing systems.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether Defendant's products actually perform the multi-step "automated optimization" processes required by the asserted claims, or if they operate on a different, simpler technical principle. The complaint provides no technical evidence to support its allegations of how the accused products function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify the asserted claims, and the text of the patents' claims was not provided. Therefore, an analysis of key claim terms for construction is not possible based on the provided documents.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The alleged basis for inducement is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, but bases this knowledge solely on "the service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited." (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). This alleges post-suit, rather than pre-suit, knowledge.

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

This case, in its initial stage, will likely focus on procedural sufficiency before turning to substantive technical and legal disputes. The central questions raised by the complaint are:

• A core issue will be one of procedural sufficiency: Does a complaint that identifies no accused products by name and supports its infringement allegations exclusively by reference to non-provided exhibits meet the plausibility standard required for patent infringement pleadings?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the case moves forward, Plaintiff will need to produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant's products perform the specific, multi-factorial "automated optimization" and "auction" methods recited in the patents, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the patented economic models and the accused call routing technology.
• A central legal question will be one of claim scope: Can claim terms rooted in economic theory, such as "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost", be construed broadly enough to read on the features of a commercial call-routing product, or are they limited to the specific auction-based embodiments described in the patent specifications?