Patent Armory Inc v. Fullstory Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Fullstory, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00030, D. Del., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software products infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for optimizing communications routing, particularly in call centers, by using algorithmic analysis of caller needs and agent skills to move beyond simple chronological queuing.
• 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.

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 section describes the inefficiencies of conventional call center management, which often relies on static agent groupings and simple "first-in, first-out" call queuing. This can lead to mismatches, such as routing a complex call to an under-skilled agent or a simple call to an over-skilled agent, thereby reducing overall throughput and service quality (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as an auction. It defines "inferential targeting parameters" for an incoming communication (the first entity) and "characteristic parameters" for available agents (the second entities). The system then performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match based on maximizing an "economic surplus" while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This allows for a more dynamic and economically efficient matching of callers to agents based on a cost-utility function (’420 Patent, col. 23:41-24:4).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move call routing beyond simple skill-based matching to a more sophisticated economic optimization that considers both immediate utility and the broader, long-term operational costs of the call center (’420 Patent, col. 27:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. A representative independent method claim, based on the patent's disclosure, includes the following essential elements:
  • 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 respective match of the first entity with one of the second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the selected second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’420 Patent, Claims; Compl. ¶15).

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, this patent addresses the inefficiencies in traditional call centers, noting that static "queue/team" models are often suboptimal because the mix and pace of transactions change throughout the day (’748 Patent, col. 5:1-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that uses predicted characteristics of both "communications sources" (e.g., callers) and "communications targets" (e.g., agents), with each having an associated "economic utility." The system determines an optimal routing between sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility" that considers these respective characteristics (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can factor in training value and other long-term operational goals, rather than focusing solely on immediate call-handling efficiency (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 35:28-40).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for intelligent routing based not just on static rules but on a dynamic optimization of overall utility, allowing a call center to balance short-term efficiency with long-term goals like agent training (’748 Patent, col. 27:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. A representative independent system claim, based on the patent's disclosure, includes the following essential elements:
  • A representation of predicted characteristics for a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • A representation of predicted characteristics for a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • A process for determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility based on their respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’748 Patent, Claims; Compl. ¶21).

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 April 4, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It uses a "communications classification" for an incoming call and compares it against a database of agent skill scores and a database of skill weights to compute and select an optimal agent for handling the call (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’979 Patent (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 September 11, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’979 Patent, also discloses a communications system that determines an optimal agent for a communication based on a combinatorial optimization. The optimization considers communication classifications and agent characteristics to maximize a cost-benefit function (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’253 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 September 27, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) via an automated, auction-style optimization. The system considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other incoming calls (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not name specific products or describe their technical functionality in its narrative sections. It instead incorporates by reference Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which are described as including charts comparing the patent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. As a result, the complaint itself does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. 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 were not provided with the filed document. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed based on the available materials. The complaint alleges that the charts in these exhibits demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be how the patent family's concepts of an "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," which are described primarily in the context of routing telephone calls to human agents in a call center, apply to the specific operations of the accused software products.
  • Technical Questions: Given the algorithmic nature of the asserted patents (e.g., performing a "multifactorial optimization" or maximizing an "aggregate utility"), a key factual dispute may concern whether the accused products perform the specific type of optimization required by the claims, or a different, more generalized form of routing or matching that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (’420 Patent, Abstract)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the auction-based patents. The definitions of "optimization" and "economic surplus" will be critical for determining the scope of infringement, particularly whether any system that balances competing factors meets the limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the problem in general terms of balancing competing goals, such as service quality and efficient use of resources, which could support a broader reading of "economic surplus" (’420 Patent, col. 2:28-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for calculating a "cost-utility function" that includes factors for agent cost, anticipated change in agent value, transaction value, and opportunity cost. A defendant may argue these specific embodiments narrow the scope of the term (’420 Patent, col. 24:50-65).

• The Term: "inferential targeting parameters" (’420 Patent, Abstract)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the data inputs used by the claimed system. Its construction will determine what types of information about a communication or its originator must be analyzed to fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and claims use the broad term "parameters," suggesting any data point used to infer routing needs could be covered (’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of such parameters, including "preferred language, a voice stress analysis, word cadence, accent, sex, the nature of the call (IVR and/or speech recognition), [and] personality type," which may be used to argue for a more limited construction tied to call-center-specific data types (’420 Patent, col. 23:5-10).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis for these allegations is that Defendant allegedly distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement, which may form the basis for a later claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "auction" and "economic surplus," rooted in the patent specifications' context of routing telephone calls to human agents, be construed broadly enough to cover the functionality of the Defendant's software products, the specific nature of which is not detailed in the complaint?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: as the complaint's infringement theory rests on non-provided exhibits, the case will likely turn on what discovery reveals about whether the accused products actually perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" and "cost-utility" calculations required by the asserted claims, or if they employ a fundamentally different and non-infringing technical method.