Patent Armory Inc v. HRB Digital LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: HRB Digital LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00033, D. Del., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District of Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s communication and call routing systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a telecommunications network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves advanced call center systems that use algorithms to intelligently route incoming communications to the most appropriate agent based on various factors, moving beyond simple first-in, first-out queuing.
• 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

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 describes the inefficiency of conventional call center management, which struggles to balance customer service quality with the efficient use of resources ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Specific problems identified include the "under-skilled agent problem," where agents lack the skills for a given transaction, and the "over-skilled agent problem," where highly trained agents are inefficiently assigned to simple tasks ('420 Patent, col. 4:1-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that moves beyond simple queuing by performing a "multifactorial optimization" to match communications (e.g., calls) with targets (e.g., agents) ('420 Patent, Fig. 4). The system receives "classification factors" for each communication and uses stored "characteristics" of the agents to determine an "optimum" match, which then controls the routing of the communication ('420 Patent, col. 9:18-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for dynamic, context-aware routing that can account for complex variables like agent skill levels, training needs, and business objectives, aiming to improve overall call center efficiency beyond what static routing rules can achieve ('420 Patent, col. 2:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '420 Patent, including "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the disclosed method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving call classification information for each of a plurality of calls, the information comprising a plurality of classification characteristics.
  • Representing a plurality of agent characteristics for each of a plurality of agents.
  • Determining an optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations of the set of agents with the plurality of calls.
  • The determining step is dependent on at least a multifactorial optimization of the weighted correspondence of the call characteristics and the agent characteristics.
  • Controlling a concurrent call routing of the calls in dependence on the determination.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but its general language suggests this possibility.

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 background identifies the latency and architectural limitations of traditional computer-telephony integrated systems, where intelligent routing decisions are often "externalized" from the core switching hardware, creating delays and inefficiencies ('748 Patent, col. 2:20-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "intelligent switching architecture" where complex routing logic is integrated at a "relatively low level within the communications management architecture" ('748 Patent, col. 18:25-30). This allows the system to resolve a communication's target using an algorithm in real-time, rather than relying on a predetermined address or a separate high-level system, enabling more dynamic and responsive routing ('748 Patent, col. 18:8-22).
• Technical Importance: This architecture aims to reduce the communication bandwidth and transactional load between the core telephony switch and external management software (e.g., a CRM system), thereby enabling faster, more sophisticated routing decisions ('748 Patent, col. 25:50-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the disclosed method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a plurality of concurrent communications, each having associated classification factors.
  • Storing information representing characteristics of a plurality of potential targets.
  • Performing a multifactorial optimization to determine an optimum target for each communication based on the classification factors and target characteristics.
  • Routing at least one of the communications to a respective optimum target.
  • Performing the determining and routing steps under control of a common single computer operating system.
• The complaint’s general allegations suggest the right to assert dependent claims is preserved.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• 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 relates to a communications management system that uses a database of skill weights and agent skill scores to compute an "optimum agent selection." The system directly controls call routing based on this computation ('979 Patent, Abstract).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).

• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed intelligent call routing technology (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

• 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 a continuation of the application that led to the '979 Patent and similarly describes a system for intelligent call routing. It focuses on a combinatorial optimization of a cost-benefit function to determine the optimal agent ('253 Patent, Abstract; col. 1, lines 10-14).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).

• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed intelligent call routing technology (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

• 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, related to the '420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for each and performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" of a potential match. It also considers the "opportunity cost" of making a particular match ('086 Patent, Abstract).

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).

• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed auction-based matching technology (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify specific accused products, systems, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim chart exhibits attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not describe the specific functionality or operation of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by" the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Based on the technology of the patents, the accused instrumentalities are alleged to be communication systems that intelligently route customer interactions. No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance are made. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents-in-suit but incorporates its theories by reference to claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). In the absence of these charts, the infringement allegations are summarized below in narrative form.

'420 Patent & '748 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products directly infringe the '420 and '748 patents by performing methods of intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶15, ¶21). The narrative theory is that these systems receive incoming communications, analyze characteristics associated with the communication and with available agents, perform a "multifactorial optimization" to determine an optimal pairing, and route the communication based on that determination, thereby practicing all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused systems perform the specific steps recited in the claims. For example, what evidence will show that the Defendant's systems execute a "multifactorial optimization" of "weighted correspondences" ('420 Patent, Claim 1) rather than a simpler, non-infringing, priority-based routing scheme?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key terms. For instance, does the accused routing logic, as it actually operates, fall within the scope of claim terms like "optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations" ('420 Patent, Claim 1) or "a common a single computer operating system" ('748 Patent, Claim 1)? The complaint does not provide the factual basis for the court to begin this analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "multifactorial optimization" (present in asserted patents, e.g., '420 Patent, Claim 1; '748 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be at the core of the claimed invention, distinguishing it from simpler routing methods. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case will depend on whether the defendant's system performs a process that meets this definition, versus a conventional rules-based system that may not constitute an "optimization."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes balancing "competing goals" such as service quality and resource efficiency, suggesting the term could broadly cover any process that weighs multiple competing factors ('420 Patent, col. 2:29-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes specific optimization goals, such as maximizing an "economic surplus" and minimizing an "opportunity cost," which could support a narrower construction tied to specific economic or mathematical models ('420 Patent, Abstract).

• The Term: "auction" (central to the '420 and '086 patents).

• Context and Importance: The titles of the '420 and '086 patents frame the matching process as an "auction." The interpretation of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as it suggests a competitive selection process that may or may not be present in the accused systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification depicts an auction as a process to "determine the select respective communications path" from among "available competing paths," which could be argued to cover any competitive selection mechanism ('420 Patent, Fig. 6).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes using "economic factors" to "perturb a non-economic optimal matching," which suggests a more specific type of economic auction rather than a general selection process ('420 Patent, Fig. 7).

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).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the '748 and '086 patents, but bases this knowledge on "the service of this Complaint," indicating an allegation of post-suit, rather than pre-suit, knowledge (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations and its reliance on unfiled exhibits, a key question will be what evidence Plaintiff can develop to demonstrate that Defendant's systems actually perform the specific technical steps recited in the claims, such as a "multifactorial optimization."
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in specific technical and economic fields, such as "optimization" and "auction," be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of Defendant's commercial call-routing systems, or will they be limited to the particular mathematical and economic models disclosed in the patents?
• A third question will relate to pleading sufficiency: the complaint's conclusory allegations that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the claims without providing factual support may raise questions regarding whether it meets the plausibility standards for patent infringement pleading established by the Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly.