Patent Armory Inc v. Coca Cola Bottlers' Sales & Services Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Coca-Cola Bottlers' Sales & Services Company LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00291, D. Del., 03/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the District, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business operations, presumably involving call centers or other communication hubs, infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching communicating entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns sophisticated telecommunications management systems designed to optimize the matching of incoming communications (like customer calls) with available resources (like service agents) by considering multiple factors beyond simple queuing.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents claim priority from applications dating as far back as 2003, indicating a long development and prosecution history for the core technology. The front page of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 notes that it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent in the family.

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: March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiencies of traditional call center management, where Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems route inbound callers to agents on a simple "first-come-first-served" basis (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 2:42-52). This approach fails to account for agent skills or other complex variables, leading to problems like routing a call to an under-skilled or over-skilled agent, which reduces transactional throughput (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" that functions like an auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the best match based on skills or other parameters but also broader economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for a different potential match ('420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7). This allows for a more globally efficient allocation of resources within the communications system ('420 Patent, col. 5:10-25).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond simple queuing logic to a more holistic, economic model for resource allocation in real-time communications, aiming to maximize the overall value generated by the call center rather than just minimizing wait times ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers, incorporating claim charts by reference to an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent’s core method.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match
  • performing the automated optimization also with respect to an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity

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

• Issued: November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '420 Patent, the ’748 Patent addresses the problem of inefficient call routing in call centers, particularly the failure of traditional systems to account for agent skill levels and the long-term operational goals of the center (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "intelligent communication routing system" that optimizes a "cost-utility function" for call center operations ('748 Patent, Abstract). This system moves beyond short-term efficiency (like minimizing wait time) to consider long-term goals, such as agent training. The system can decide whether to route a call to a highly skilled agent for immediate efficiency or to a trainee for a long-term benefit, balancing these competing objectives ('748 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 307-314). The system analyzes various factors, including the "expected incremental cost of agent" and "expected incremental training utility," to make a routing decision ('748 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This technology introduces the concept of valuing agent training as a quantifiable factor within the real-time call routing decision, allowing a call center to strategically invest in its workforce during live operations rather than treating all calls as uniform events to be cleared as quickly as possible ('748 Patent, col. 24:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them, incorporating claim charts by reference to an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core system.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • a communications system for routing a communication from a source to one of a plurality of targets
  • a memory storing a vector of predicted characteristics of the source and a vector of predicted characteristics for each target
  • a processor configured to determine an optimal routing by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics of the source and targets

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

• Issued: April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: Based on its title and relationship to the other patents, this patent appears to disclose a foundational system for intelligent call routing in a telephony environment, likely establishing some of the core concepts of using agent skills and other data points to make routing decisions more sophisticated than traditional ACD systems.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Issued: September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: Bearing the same title as the ’979 Patent, this patent likely represents a continuation or refinement of the earlier invention, further developing the disclosed systems for intelligent call routing in telephony control systems.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Issued: September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: With a title identical to the '420 Patent, this patent likely covers an earlier iteration of the auction-based matching system. It claims priority to the same 2003 provisional application, suggesting it is part of the same core inventive effort to apply economic optimization and auction principles to telecommunications routing.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by a specific name (Compl. ¶15). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" used by Coca-Cola Bottlers’ Sales & Services Company LLC (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality. The allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Based on the nature of the defendant and the asserted patents, the accused instrumentalities are presumably internal or customer-facing sales and service systems that route communications.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). The complaint's text provides only boilerplate allegations that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (e.g., Compl. ¶17). Without the claim charts or a more detailed narrative theory of infringement, a specific analysis of the infringement allegations cannot be performed from the provided documents.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the construction of claim terms rooted in economic and auction theory, such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," as recited in the '420 and ’086 Patents. The key question will be whether Defendant's communication routing systems, which may use criteria like agent skill, availability, or call priority, perform a function that falls within the scope of these terms as defined by the patents.
• Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be what logic Defendant’s systems actually employ. The case may require discovery to determine whether Defendant's systems perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" required by the claims or if they operate on a different, non-infringing technical principle. The allegations concerning the '748 Patent will raise the question of whether Defendant's systems explicitly or implicitly calculate a "cost-utility function" that accounts for long-term factors like agent training.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term for Construction: "auction"

• Source: '420 and '086 Patents
• Context and Importance: The applicability of the '420 and '086 Patents to Defendant's systems may depend entirely on the construction of "auction." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue its system is a conventional skill-based router, not an auction mechanism, while Plaintiff may argue that any system that selects one resource (an agent) from a pool of competing resources based on optimizing a set of variables is performing a type of auction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed background section of the '420 Patent extensively discusses conventional ACDs and skill-based routing as the prior art the invention improves upon (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 2:42-6:49). This context may support an interpretation that "auction" is used more broadly to describe a sophisticated method of resource allocation in that environment, rather than requiring formal bids.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common technical and legal meaning of "auction" implies a process of bidding and price determination. The abstract's reference to "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" could be cited to support a narrower construction requiring an explicit economic or pricing mechanism that may be absent in a standard call-routing system ('420 Patent, Abstract).

Term for Construction: "cost-utility function"

• Source: '748 Patent
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegation for the '748 Patent. The dispute will likely focus on whether the logic in Defendant's routing system, whatever it may be, can be characterized as optimizing a "cost-utility function" that incorporates long-term operational goals like training, as described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function in broad terms, stating it can be based on "any variety of factors" and that parameters may be "expressed in common terms, allowing unified consideration" (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 25:51-57, which contains the specification text for the technology family). This could support a broad reading covering any multi-factor decision logic.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of factors in the function, such as "expected incremental cost of agent" and "expected incremental training utility" ('748 Patent, Fig. 2). Defendant may argue that for a system to optimize a "cost-utility function," it must explicitly calculate or model these or similar forward-looking, economic-style variables, rather than simply routing based on immediate agent availability or skill scores.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '748 and '086 Patents (Compl. ¶25, ¶46). The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "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 that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" for the '748 and '086 Patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This forms a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement if infringement is found to be ongoing. There are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "auction" and "economic surplus," rooted in competitive economic theory, be construed to cover the complex, but not necessarily price-based, logic that a modern corporate call center might use to route customer inquiries to agents?
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused products, the case will turn on what discovery reveals about the actual technical operation of Defendant’s communication systems. Plaintiff will bear the burden of demonstrating that these systems perform the specific multi-factorial, economically-oriented optimizations required by the patent claims, rather than more conventional routing methods.