Patent Armory Inc v. Honeylove Sculptwear Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: HoneyLove Sculptwear, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00032, D. Del., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated there and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and communication routing systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching, primarily in a call-center context.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns sophisticated methods for routing communications, such as customer service calls, to the most appropriate agent by using economic and optimization principles, a key function for managing large-scale customer contact centers efficiently.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents form a large family, with the earliest patents issuing over a decade before the most recent, suggesting a long-term development and patenting effort in this technology area.

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: Traditional call centers use simplistic routing methods like "first-come-first-served" or basic skill matching, which are inefficient. These methods fail to account for complex variables, leading to mismatches between callers and agents, increased wait times, and suboptimal use of call center resources, particularly when agents have overlapping or multiple skills (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34, col. 4:13-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a sophisticated routing system that treats the matching of a caller (a "first entity") to an agent (a "second entity") as a micro-economic auction. The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the skill-based fit but also the "economic surplus" of a successful match and the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to a particular call, thereby making that agent unavailable for other potential calls (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:46-54). This allows for a more dynamic and globally optimized allocation of agent resources in real-time.
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond static routing rules to a dynamic, economically-driven model, aiming to maximize the overall value or utility generated by the call center as a whole, rather than just handling the next call in line (’420 Patent, col. 21:5-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, incorporating by reference an exhibit that identifies exemplary claims (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not specify independent claims in the body of the text. Claim 1 is the first independent method claim of the patent.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity from a plurality of second entities.
  • 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 second entities, representing their 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 at least one second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.

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

The complaint and the provided exhibits do not contain the full text of the ’748 Patent. Analysis is therefore limited to the information available in the complaint.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the problem addressed.
• The Patented Solution: Based on its title, the patent relates to a system and method for intelligent communication routing (Compl. ¶10). The technology appears to be related to that of the ’420 Patent, concerning the direction of communications to appropriate destinations within a network.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’748 Patent are asserted, instead incorporating an external exhibit by reference (Compl. ¶21). Insufficient detail is provided for analysis of the patent’s claims.
  Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979: “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from an earlier part of the same patent family as the lead patents, describes a telephony control system with intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶11). It addresses the problem of efficiently routing telephone calls in environments like call centers by moving beyond simple queuing to more intelligent, criteria-based agent selection.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, incorporating an external exhibit by reference (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

• U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253: “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '979 patent, this patent also describes a telephony control system with intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶12). It appears to represent a further development of the same core technology for optimizing call distribution in a telecommunications network.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, incorporating an external exhibit by reference (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶38).

• U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086: “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a direct ancestor of the ’420 Patent, describes a method and system for matching entities in an auction (Compl. ¶13). It introduces the concept of applying auction-based economic principles to the problem of matching entities, such as callers and agents, in a communications system.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, incorporating an external exhibit by reference (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. It refers to them collectively as the “Exemplary Defendant Products” (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the patents-in-suit, which relates to intelligent call routing and entity matching (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). Given that the Defendant is HoneyLove Sculptwear, Inc., the accused instrumentalities are presumably the systems, software, and methods HoneyLove uses to manage and route customer communications in its customer service operations. The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and/or imported in the United States (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents but incorporates claim charts in external exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not provided (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The following summarizes the infringement theory in prose for the lead patent based on the complaint's narrative and the patent's claims.

• ’420 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe by practicing the patented method for matching entities (Compl. ¶15). This suggests Plaintiff’s theory is that when a HoneyLove customer contacts the company, the Defendant's system defines parameters for that customer (the "first entity") and for its available agents (the "second entities"). The system then allegedly performs an "automated optimization" to decide which agent should handle the communication, and this optimization considers concepts like the economic value ("surplus") of the match and the "opportunity cost" of using a specific agent, thereby meeting the limitations of at least Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the economic terms used in the claims—such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost"—can be read onto the functionality of a commercial customer service routing system. The defense may argue these terms imply specific financial or bidding mechanisms not present in its system.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may be what factors Defendant's routing system actually considers. The complaint's theory requires proof that the system performs a multi-factorial "optimization" that specifically calculates an "opportunity cost" (i.e., the value lost by not assigning an agent to a different, potentially more valuable, future call) rather than simply matching based on agent availability, idle time, or a static skill ranking.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent:

• The Term: "automated optimization"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core functional step of the independent claims. Its construction will be critical. If "optimization" is construed to require a specific, complex mathematical process (like linear programming) that finds a mathematically maximal or minimal value, infringement may be harder to prove. If it is construed more broadly to mean an automated selection based on a set of weighted rules, the claims may have a wider scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses various factors that can be included in the optimization, such as call center capacity, training needs, and agent cost, suggesting a flexible, multi-faceted process rather than a single, rigid algorithm (’420 Patent, col. 23:26-42, Fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the optimization in specific economic terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," and references game theory and auctions, which could support a narrower construction requiring the implementation of these specific economic models (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:5-15).

• The Term: "opportunity cost"

  • Context and Importance: This term is a specific and sophisticated economic concept recited in the independent claim. Infringement requires showing the accused system calculates not just the value of the present match, but also the value lost by making an agent unavailable for other potential matches. Proving the accused system performs this forward-looking calculation will likely be a key point of contention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a formula where opportunity cost is one of several factors in a larger cost-utility function, suggesting it could be a simple predictive variable rather than a formal, real-time calculation of all possible future call values (’420 Patent, col. 24:41-50).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract explicitly states the optimization considers the "opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity," linking the term directly to a comparison between potential alternative matches, which implies a more complex, dynamic calculation (’420 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations state that since being served with the complaint, the Defendant has knowingly and intentionally induced infringement by selling its products to customers for use in an infringing manner and distributing literature that directs users to commit infringement (Compl. ¶¶25, 46).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement, and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 44-45). The prayer for relief also requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶ N.i).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the techno-economic terms central to the patents, such as "automated optimization," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," which are rooted in formal auction and game theory, be construed to cover the rule-based logic likely used in a commercial customer service routing system?
2. A second central issue will be evidentiary proof: what factual evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, forward-looking calculation of "opportunity cost" required by the claims, as opposed to a more conventional routing method based on static skills, agent availability, or longest idle time?
3. A final question will concern damages and scope of accused products: given the generic identification of "Exemplary Defendant Products," the case will involve defining the precise contours of the accused instrumentality within Defendant's customer service infrastructure and determining a reasonable royalty for patents that cover a specific optimization method within that larger system.