Patent Armory Inc v. Battlbrands Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Battlbrands Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00289, D. Del., 03/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in telecommunications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced systems for managing communications, such as in a call center, by using complex algorithms and economic principles to route calls or match parties, aiming to improve efficiency beyond simple skill-based assignment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, licensing history, or other significant procedural events 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 traditional call center management, where simple "first-come-first-served" or queue/team models can lead to mismatches, such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" who cannot resolve the issue or an "over-skilled agent" whose expertise is wasted on a simple task (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with one of a plurality of "second entities" (e.g., agents) by performing an "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization goes beyond simple skill matching and considers factors such as the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, using multivalued scalar data to represent the characteristics of all parties involved (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:5-15).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, economic model that seeks to globally optimize call center resources in real-time.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, instead referencing charts in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶15, 17). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request.
  • Determining a set of available partners, each having at least one respective partner characteristic.
  • Evaluating, with at least one automated processor, a plurality of pairings of the request with different available partners, according to an evaluator for valuing the pairings.
  • Generating a control signal, by the automated processor, selectively dependent on the evaluation.

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

Issued Nov. 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of efficiently routing electronic communications in environments like call centers, which must balance customer service quality with the efficient use of resources (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34). It notes the limitations of both simple queuing systems and the technical constraints of non-deterministic operating systems for handling real-time routing decisions (’748 Patent, col. 2:5-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that represents both communication sources and targets with "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the characteristics of the source and destination, effectively creating a market-based mechanism for routing communications (’748 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to integrate intelligent, utility-maximizing algorithms directly into the low-level communication management architecture, reducing latency and dependence on separate high-level management systems (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," referencing charts in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶21, 26). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a plurality of respective communications.
  • Identifying a plurality of resources available for association, each having a limited quantitative capacity.
  • Calculating a score for each available resource based on its availability state.
  • Estimating an expected economic value for associating each communication with each resource, dependent on the score and a value function.
  • Assigning each communication to a resource based on the estimated expected economic value.

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

Issued Apr. 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a telephony control system that provides intelligent call routing. It appears to be an earlier patent in the same family as the ’420 and ’748 patents, addressing the problem of efficiently matching callers to agents in a call center by moving beyond simple queuing to more sophisticated, multifactorial analysis (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are alleged to practice the technology claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶30, 32).

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

Issued Sep. 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, like the ’979 patent, concerns a telephony control system with intelligent call routing. The invention addresses optimizing the assignment of communications to agents based on a combinatorial analysis of various factors, including agent skills and communication characteristics, to improve upon traditional call center management systems (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are alleged to practice the technology claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶36, 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 describes a method for matching entities through an auction mechanism, where an automated optimization is performed. The system considers the economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of resource unavailability, aligning it with the technology of the ’420 patent (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are alleged to practice the technology claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶42, 47).

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 provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. It states that this information is contained in Exhibits 6 through 10, which are incorporated by reference but were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific details into claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Based on the patents' focus on economic optimizations, a central point of contention may be whether the term "economic surplus" (’420 Patent) or the act of "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent) can be construed to read on the functionality of the accused products. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products perform a true, multifaceted economic optimization or a simpler form of skill-based or priority-based routing that falls outside the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence the complaint provides to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the complex, multi-step optimization methods required by the claims. For example, for the ’420 Patent, this would involve showing that the accused system calculates not only the benefit of a proposed match but also the "opportunity cost" of forgoing other potential matches, as the claim language suggests (’420 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"economic surplus" (’420 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the ’420 Patent, which distinguishes itself from prior art routing systems by applying economic principles. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to mean any calculated "value" or narrowly to require a specific type of economic calculation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition, which may support an interpretation based on the term's plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art (’420 Patent, passim).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract’s linkage of "economic surplus" with "opportunity cost" could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, two-part economic calculation that considers both the direct benefit of a match and the cost of resource preclusion (’420 Patent, Abstract).

"maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core optimization goal of the routing system claimed in the ’748 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case may turn on whether the accused system performs a true maximization across a set of potential pairings, or merely selects the "best" available option from a sequential analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses balancing competing goals and making "efficient use of call center resources," which could support a broader view of "utility" as general operational efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires maximizing an "aggregate" utility, which suggests a calculation that sums or otherwise combines the utility of multiple potential source-target linkages, rather than just assessing a single pairing in isolation (’748 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).

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).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The basis for this allegation is post-suit knowledge, stating that the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶23, 44).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s systems perform the specific, multi-step economic optimizations central to the asserted patents? The case may depend on whether the accused products use a conventional skill-based routing algorithm or a more complex method that calculates concepts like "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility."
2. A second issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the key optimization terms in the claims? Whether terms like "economic surplus" and "maximizing an aggregate utility" are given broad or narrow definitions will be critical in determining if the functionality of the accused products falls within the scope of the patent claims.
3. An evidentiary question will be one of intent for indirect claims: For the induced infringement allegations against the ’748 and ’086 patents, a key question will be whether Plaintiff can show that Defendant's product literature and user manuals specifically instructed or encouraged users to operate the products in a manner that satisfies all elements of the asserted patent claims.