Patent Armory Inc v. Campus Protein Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Campus Protein, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00290, D. Del., 03/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in telecommunications networks.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to automated call distribution (ACD) and computer telephony integration (CTI) systems, which are foundational for modern call centers and electronic customer service platforms.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued March 19, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management strategies, where Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems route calls based on simple rules like "first-come-first-served" or connect callers to the longest-idle agent (’420 Patent, col. 1:44-54). These methods are inadequate in complex environments where agents possess varying skills, leading to problems such as routing a customer to an under-skilled or over-skilled agent (’420 Patent, col. 4:12-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a communication (e.g., a call) with a target (e.g., an agent) as an auction. The system performs a "multifactorial optimization" to determine an "optimum target" by analyzing multiple "classification factors" associated with the communication and the "characteristics" of the available agents (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:17-31). This optimization can be perturbed by economic factors or other objectives, such as training an agent, to achieve a desired cost-benefit outcome (’420 Patent, col. 9:56-60; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for more dynamic and intelligent call routing than conventional queuing systems by considering a wide range of variables to optimize the outcome of each connection (’420 Patent, col. 5:10-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least the "exemplary method claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a plurality of concurrent communications, each with 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 communication to its optimum target, with the determining and routing steps performed under the control of a single computer operating system.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the architectural limitations of computer-telephony integrated (CTI) systems where complex decision-making is "externalized" to high-level software, creating potential latencies and communication overhead between the management software and the low-level hardware that physically routes calls (’748 Patent, col. 1:53-2:24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an architectural change where intelligent routing decisions are integrated into the "low level communication server system" itself (’748 Patent, col. 17:9-13). This system resolves the target of a communication using an algorithm in real-time based on an "inferential description" (e.g., required skills) rather than a concrete address, and can implement features such as skill-based routing that accounts for long-term optimization and agent training (’748 Patent, col. 17:15-24; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This integrated architecture aims to reduce latency and system complexity by performing computationally intensive optimization tasks within the same system that manages the voice channels, rather than passing data back and forth with a separate high-level management system (’748 Patent, col. 19:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An input for receiving a call classification vector.
  • A table of agent characteristic vectors.
  • A processor for determining an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence of the call classification vector and the agent characteristic vectors.
  • The processor also controls the call routing of the information based on its determination.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• 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 telephony control system that optimizes call routing in a call center. The system moves beyond simple queuing by optimizing a "cost-utility function" that considers not only short-term metrics but also factors relevant to the "long term call center operation," such as agent training (’979 Patent, col. 2:38-46; Fig. 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least the "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products practice the claimed technology but does not specify which features are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶32).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’979 Patent, this invention relates to a telephony control system that intelligently routes calls. It discloses a method that optimizes a "cost-utility function" for both short-term efficiency and "long term call center operation," and can differentiate its routing logic based on whether the call center is near capacity (’253 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least the "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint does not identify the specific features of the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are alleged to infringe the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶38).

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

• 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, a parent to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity by defining targeting parameters and characteristic parameters for the respective entities. It performs an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making that match (i.e., the cost of making the second entity unavailable for another potential match) (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe but does not specify which features are accused (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific product, method, or service offered by Campus Protein, Inc. (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the functionality of these products is detailed in claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents-in-suit by incorporating by reference claim charts provided as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). The complaint does not contain a narrative infringement theory or the referenced exhibits, which precludes a detailed, element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the asserted patents and the generic nature of the allegations, the central infringement disputes may revolve around the following questions:
  • Scope Questions: For the ’420 and ’086 Patents, a likely point of dispute is whether the accused system’s process for matching callers and agents meets the claim requirements of an "auction" that performs an "optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." For the ’748, ’979, and ’253 Patents, a key question may be whether the architecture of the accused system aligns with the claimed "low level" or "intelligent switching" architecture, or if it instead uses a more conventional separation of call control and high-level business logic.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that the accused products perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" and "cost-utility function" calculations required by the claims, as opposed to employing simpler, heuristic-based routing rules.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’420 Patent:

  • The Term: "performing a multifactorial optimization to determine an optimum target" (from claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the central functional step of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the case could depend on whether the defendant's matching algorithm constitutes a "multifactorial optimization" and whether its output can be considered an "optimum target" as understood in the context of the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description notes that the optimization is based on "classification factors and the characteristics of the plurality of targets," suggesting a broad range of potential inputs without limiting the specific mathematical method used (’420 Patent, col. 9:17-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s description of Figure 4 details a specific process involving "skill weights," a "cost function," and a step to "perturb the determining step," which a defendant might argue narrows the scope of "optimization" to a process that includes these specific considerations (’420 Patent, col. 9:46-60).

• For the ’748 Patent:

  • The Term: "a low level communication server system" (from the preamble of claim 11, upon which asserted independent claim 1 depends).
  • Context and Importance: The patent’s stated contribution is the integration of intelligent routing into a "low level" system to reduce latency. The definition of "low level" will therefore be critical to determining whether the accused system's architecture falls within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the system as one for "intelligent communication routing within a low-level communication server system," which could be interpreted functionally as the system component that directly manages communication channels (’748 Patent, col. 17:9-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides an example of a "PC server having a main processor... and one or more voice channel processors" (’748 Patent, col. 18:61-19:2). This specific hardware arrangement could be used to argue that "low level system" refers to a particular CTI hardware architecture, not just any system that routes calls.

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" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (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" and that Defendant's infringing conduct has continued post-filing (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 44-45). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. The prayer for relief also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 11, ¶N.i).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions, one procedural and one technical.

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement allegations are entirely dependent on claim chart exhibits that were not publicly filed. A threshold question for the court will be whether the factual allegations in those exhibits, once produced, are sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that the accused products practice each element of the asserted claims.
• A key technical question will be one of functional and architectural scope: Can the "matching" algorithms in the accused products be shown to perform the specific "auctions" and "multifactorial optimizations" required by the auction-related patents? Concurrently, does the architecture of the accused systems embody the integrated "low level" intelligent routing claimed by the telephony system patents, or does it utilize a more conventional architecture where such logic is handled by a distinct, high-level application?