DCT

1:25-cv-00467

Patent Armory Inc v. Gusto Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Patent Armory Inc. v. Gusto, Inc., 1:25-cv-00467, D. Del., 04/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in telecommunications.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center management systems that move beyond simple routing rules to use complex, real-time optimizations for matching callers with agents based on economic and skill-based criteria.
  • Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,269,253 and 7,023,979
2003-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,237,420 and 9,456,086
2006-04-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issued
2025-04-17 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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 inefficiencies in traditional call centers, such as routing calls to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents, which reduces transactional throughput and customer satisfaction. Static grouping of agents and simple first-in-first-out queuing fail to adapt to dynamic changes in call volume and type. (Compl., Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for intelligently matching entities (e.g., a caller and an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" that considers not just skills, but also economic factors like the "economic surplus" of a successful match and the "opportunity cost" of assigning a skilled agent to one call when they could be handling a more valuable one. This optimization is performed in near real-time by a low-level communications server. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:9-28).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move call routing from a simple, static rules-based system to a dynamic, holistic optimization model that treats call center resources as a market to be managed for maximum economic utility. (’420 Patent, col. 20:50-21:13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’420 Patent, with claim charts incorporated by reference. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17-18). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity, comprising:
    • 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; 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.

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: This patent, from the same family as the ’420 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: the inefficiency of traditional, non-adaptive call center routing systems. (’748 Patent, col. 1:24-3:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that uses predicted characteristics of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) to determine an "optimal routing." This determination is made by maximizing an "aggregate utility" function that considers the respective characteristics of the source and destination. This optimization is performed by a low-level communications control system rather than a separate, high-level management platform. (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:9-28).
  • Technical Importance: The solution aims to improve call center throughput and efficiency by embedding complex, utility-based optimization logic directly into the communications switching architecture. (’748 Patent, col. 19:1-20:51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’748 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 26-27). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A communications routing method, comprising:
    • representing, by a computer, a predicted characteristic of a communication source;
    • representing, by the computer, a predicted characteristic of a plurality of communication targets; and
    • determining, by the computer, an optimal routing between the communication source and the plurality of communication targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of the communication source and communication destination represented by linkages.

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: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient call routing in telephony systems. The proposed solution is a control system that uses a database of agent skills and call classifications to compute an optimal agent selection based on a cost-benefit analysis, and then directly controls the routing of the call.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’253 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 32).

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 addresses inefficient call routing by describing a system that receives a communication, accesses a database of skill weights and agent skill scores, and uses a processor to compute an optimal agent selection. The system then directly controls the routing of the communication based on this computation.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’7023979 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’7023979 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 41).

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: As part of the same family as the ’420 Patent, this patent describes a method for matching entities by defining targeting and characteristic parameters for them. It then performs an automated optimization considering the economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of forgoing other matches, thereby creating an auction-like system for resource allocation.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 36, 45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. The infringement allegations are made via claim charts incorporated by reference as exhibits, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 41, 50).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that are not provided. The narrative allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 41, 50).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be whether the accused products, which are not described, perform the specific type of economic modeling required by the claims of the '420 and '086 Patents. For example, the dispute may turn on whether the accused system calculates an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" to conduct an "auction" as those terms are defined by the patents, or if it uses a different, non-infringing optimization method.
    • Technical Questions: For the '748, '253, and '7023979 patents, a key technical question will be whether the accused system performs an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility," as claimed. The evidence required to demonstrate how the accused system's internal algorithms function will be a focal point. The complaint provides no public-facing evidence of the accused products' internal operations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent

  • The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of independent claim 1. Its construction will determine whether a conventional skill-based routing system that considers agent efficiency falls within the claim, or if the claim is limited to systems performing a specific, multi-factor economic calculation as described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "economic surplus" is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any measure of net benefit or efficiency.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly frames the optimization in terms of complex financial and utility calculations, including factors like agent salary, training costs, and anticipated sales volume, suggesting a narrower scope limited to systems that perform explicit financial modeling. (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-50). The term "opportunity cost" is specifically described as the cost of "allocating agent n to the particular call," which suggests a specific calculation beyond simple availability. (’420 Patent, col. 24:58-61).

For the ’748 Patent

  • The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"
  • Context and Importance: This is the central action of independent claim 1. The definition of "aggregate utility" and what it means to "maximize" it will be critical. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system's routing logic performs a function that meets this claimed definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a single, limiting definition of "utility," describing it in various contexts such as "customer satisfaction" and "productivity," which could support a broader construction covering various performance metrics. (’748 Patent, col. 23:30-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed mathematical formula representing the maximization of a cost-utility function, including terms for agent cost, anticipated change in agent value, and opportunity cost. A defendant might argue that this detailed embodiment limits the claim's scope to systems that implement this or a similar multi-component formula. (’748 Patent, col. 24:51-65).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,491,748, 7,023,979, and 9,456,086. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 39-40, 48-49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge" of the '748, '7023979, and '086 patents at least from the service of the complaint. This allegation forms a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 38, 47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the patent terms "automated optimization," "economic surplus," and "aggregate utility," which are described in the context of complex, multi-factor economic models, be construed broadly enough to read on the potentially more conventional routing and resource allocation methods used in modern commercial systems?
  • A second key issue will be evidentiary: given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations about the accused products, the case will depend heavily on discovery into the internal architecture and algorithms of Defendant’s systems to determine if they actually perform the specific optimization and routing steps required by the asserted claims.
  • A final question will concern inducement: can Plaintiff produce evidence that Defendant’s customer-facing documentation and marketing materials actively instruct users to configure or operate the accused products in a manner that directly practices every element of the asserted method claims?