Patent Armory Inc v. Uplift Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Uplift, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00293, D. Del., 03/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves sophisticated call-center management systems that optimize the routing of communications to agents based on multi-factor analysis, including skills, costs, and economic outcomes.
• 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” (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call center routing systems, such as first-in-first-out or longest-idle-agent, which fail to account for the varying skills of agents (’420 Patent, col. 3:11-21). This can lead to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents being assigned to calls, reducing transactional throughput and overall efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as a multifactorial optimization problem, matching incoming communications ("first entity") with available agents ("second entities") (’420 Patent, Abstract). It defines "inferential targeting parameters" for the call and "characteristic parameters" for the agent, and then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only skill matching but also economic factors like economic surplus and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential calls (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:17-31).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for more dynamic and economically efficient resource allocation in a communications hub by moving beyond simple skill-based matching to a holistic, optimization-based framework.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" but does not identify specific claims in the complaint body (Compl. ¶15). The referenced claim chart exhibit is not provided. An analysis of representative independent claim 1 follows:
• A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
• 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” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• The complaint and the provided patent documents do not contain sufficient detail for a full analysis of the invention described in the ’748 Patent. The title suggests technology related to that of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" of the ’748 Patent but does not identify specific claims in the complaint body, instead incorporating by reference a claim chart exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶21, ¶26).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued Apr. 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The title suggests a system for intelligently routing calls within a telephony network, likely to optimize connections between callers and agents or other resources (Compl. ¶11).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" but does not identify them, referencing a claim chart exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not specify which features of those products are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued Sep. 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: The title is identical to the ’979 Patent, suggesting it covers related technology for intelligent call routing in a telephony system (Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" but does not identify them, referencing a claim chart exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not specify which features of those products are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued Sep. 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: The title suggests technology for matching entities using an auction-based mechanism, similar to the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" but does not identify them, referencing a claim chart exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not specify which features of those products are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42). The specific names and models of the accused instrumentalities are identified only in claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary...Claims" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). However, the complaint does not describe the specific technical functionality or market context of the accused products in the complaint body itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts in the body of the document; instead, it incorporates by reference Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which allegedly contain charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). As these exhibits were not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports products that practice the patented technology (Compl. ¶15). This infringement is alleged to be direct, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, and is also alleged to occur through Defendant's own internal testing and use of the products (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the scope of key claim terms. For the '420 Patent, this raises the question of whether the accused product's routing logic performs an "automated optimization" as defined by the patent. A central dispute may be whether this term requires the explicit calculation of an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," as detailed in the patent’s specification, or if it can read on other types of multi-factor decision-making algorithms.
  • Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question will be what proof exists that the accused products actually perform the functions required by the claims. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' logic defines and processes "multivalued scalar data" representing "inferential targeting parameters" to determine an optimal match, as required by claim 1 of the ’420 Patent? The complaint itself provides no such evidence, deferring all technical details to the missing exhibits.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is based on representative claim 1 of the ’420 Patent.

• The Term: "automated optimization"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the claimed invention's departure from simple rule-based routing. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as Defendant's system may use a different type of algorithm that it argues is not an "optimization."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process as a "multifactorial optimization" that applies skill weights and cost functions to determine an "optimum" target, which could support a construction covering any algorithm that weighs multiple inputs to find a best match (’420 Patent, col. 9:17-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description repeatedly frame the optimization in specific economic terms, such as maximizing "an economic surplus" and considering an "opportunity cost," which could support a narrower construction limited to algorithms that perform these specific economic calculations (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:62-67).

• The Term: "inferential targeting parameters"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the data inputs for the claimed process. The dispute will likely focus on what qualifies as an "inferential" parameter versus a direct or explicit one.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses characterizing a caller based on a wide range of data, including "preferred language, a voice stress analysis, word cadence, accent, sex, the nature of the call..., personality type, etc." (’420 Patent, col. 23:6-10). This language may support a broad definition of "inferential" that includes any characteristic not explicitly stated by the caller.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract links "inferential targeting parameters" directly to the "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus," which may support a narrower interpretation where the parameters must be of a type used to infer a specifically economic outcome (’420 Patent, Abstract).

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, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that the service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation may form the basis for a future claim of post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages, but the complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's conclusory allegations and reliance on missing exhibits, a central question will be what technical evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused products perform the specific, multi-step "automated optimization" recited in the claims, including the calculation of economic factors such as "opportunity cost."
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "automated optimization," which is described in the patent’s specification in the context of calculating economic surplus, be construed broadly enough to cover the potentially non-economic, rule-based, or simpler multi-factor routing algorithms that may be used in the accused products?