DCT

1:25-cv-00031

Patent Armory Inc v. Grove Collaborative Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00031, D. Del., 01/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the District of Delaware and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing, auction-based entity matching, and telephony control systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the management of communications in environments like call centers, aiming to improve efficiency beyond simple rule-based routing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 ’979 and ’253 Patents Priority Date
2003-03-07 ’420 and ’086 Patents Priority Date
2006-04-03 ’748 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issued
2025-01-08 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in conventional call centers, such as the "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" problems that arise from static agent groupings and simplistic call routing rules, ultimately reducing a call center's transactional throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with an optimal second entity (e.g., a call center agent) from a pool of available candidates. Instead of simple skill-matching, the system performs an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making that specific second entity unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:57-67). Figure 3 illustrates a system architecture where incoming call data (501) and agent data (503) are processed (509a, 509b) to enable an intelligent call router (512) to make an optimized connection (’420 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economically-driven model that can globally optimize resource allocation in real-time (’420 Patent, col. 4:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). The patent’s first independent method claim is Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing their respective characteristic parameters.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems in call centers, which typically rely on simple first-in-first-out queues or basic team assignments, failing to account for the complex interplay of agent skills, call characteristics, and business objectives (’748 Patent, col. 2:37-52, incorporating by reference).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications control system that performs a "multifactorial optimization" to route communications. The system receives "call classification information" describing an incoming call and compares it against a data structure of "distinct agent characteristics" to determine an optimal match based on a "non-binary weighted correspondence" between the call's needs and the agents' skills, costs, and other attributes (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 37:50-67). Figure 1 shows this logic, where the system can choose between simple skill-based routing (307) when near capacity, or a more complex routing that optimizes for long-term goals like agent training (311, 312) when capacity allows (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The system integrates this intelligent, multi-factorial decision-making into the low-level communications server itself, allowing for real-time, context-aware routing decisions that can optimize for complex business goals beyond immediate call throughput (’748 Patent, col. 18:8-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more unspecified claims of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The patent's first independent system claim is Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • An input for receiving call classification information comprising a plurality of classification characteristics.
    • A memory storing a data structure representing distinct agent characteristics for a plurality of agents.
    • A processor that determines an optimum agent based on a multifactorial optimization of a non-binary weighted correspondence between the call characteristics and the agent characteristics.
    • The processor also controls the routing of concurrent calls in dependence on the determination.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communications management system that moves beyond simple call distribution by using a processor to compute an optimal agent selection. The computation is based on a communications classification and a database of agent skills, with the system directly controlling the routing of the call based on the outcome (’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which features of the accused products allegedly infringe this patent, referring instead to a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, discloses a communications system where an optimal target for a communication is determined through a combinatorial optimization. This optimization considers the characteristics of the communication, the available targets, and factors such as predicted wait time and throughput, aiming to maximize a cost-benefit function (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific accused features, referring to a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity by conducting an automated optimization based on auction principles. The optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making one of the entities unavailable for an alternative match, thereby moving beyond simple characteristic-matching (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which features of the accused products allegedly infringe this patent, referring instead to a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers to them generically as the “Exemplary Defendant Products” throughout the infringement counts (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). For the ’748 and ’086 patents, it is alleged that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner, but the content of these materials is not described (Compl. ¶¶24, 45). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of all five patents-in-suit. For each patent, it states that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibits 6 through 10 (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint document. The complaint provides no narrative summary or factual allegations in the body of the complaint explaining how the accused products meet any specific claim limitations. As such, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint's allegations is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be an evidentiary one: what evidence exists that the accused products actually perform the specific computational functions required by the claims? For instance, with respect to the ’420 and ’086 Patents, what evidence shows that the accused system performs a specific "automated optimization" based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," as opposed to a more conventional, non-economic routing logic?
    • Scope Questions: For the ’748 Patent, a key issue may be the scope of the term "multifactorial optimization." The dispute may center on whether the accused product’s routing algorithm, if it exists, meets the claim's requirement for a "non-binary weighted correspondence," or if it employs a simpler, sequential set of rules that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" (from ’420 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the core inventive step of matching entities based on economic principles. The case will likely depend on whether the defendant's system can be shown to perform a calculation that maps to these specific economic concepts, as opposed to a more general skill-based or priority-based matching.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the entities broadly as a "first entity" and "second entity," suggesting the concepts could apply beyond the specific call-center examples provided (’420 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures are heavily rooted in the call center context, explaining economic surplus and cost in terms of agent salaries, training costs, and sales productivity, which may support a narrower construction tied to these specific commercial contexts (’420 Patent, Figs. 1-2; col. 23:23-41).

  • The Term: "multifactorial optimization" (from ’748 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art single-factor routing methods (e.g., routing to the longest-idle agent). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a simple rules-based system that considers multiple factors sequentially infringes, or if a more complex, integrated calculation is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal of the optimization in general terms, such as to resolve an "optimal communications target" by evaluating a "plurality of target characteristics" (’748 Patent, col. 10:5-15).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed five-part mathematical formula as a representation of the optimization, which includes terms for agent cost, anticipated value change, transaction value, and opportunity cost, suggesting the term may require a similarly complex, integrated calculation (’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 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 alleges that Defendant has had knowledge at least since the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶25, 46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint and the attached (but not provided) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶23, 44). It further alleges that Defendant has continued to infringe despite this knowledge, which could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶24, 45). No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: given the complaint's complete reliance on non-provided exhibits, a central question will be what factual evidence Plaintiff can introduce during discovery to demonstrate that the accused systems technically perform the specific "optimizations" and "auctions" recited in the claims, rather than more conventional communication routing functions.
  2. A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can terms drawn from economic and auction theory, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "multifactorial optimization," be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of Defendant's commercial systems, or will intrinsic evidence limit these terms to the specific mathematical and call-center models disclosed in the patents?