DCT

1:25-cv-00471

Patent Armory Inc v. Impossible Foods Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00471, D. Del., 04/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the District of Delaware, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching communicating entities.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing resource allocation in telecommunications systems, such as call centers, by using economic and skill-based models to match incoming communications with available agents.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,979; 9,456,086; 10,237,420
2006-03-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253
2006-04-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issues
2025-04-17 Complaint Filing Date

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 inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple queuing logic (e.g., first-come-first-served) to assign incoming calls to agents. These systems struggle when agents have varying skill levels, leading to problems such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" who cannot handle the request or an "over-skilled agent" whose expertise is wasted on a simple task. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as a matching problem solved through economic optimization, akin to an auction. It defines characteristics for both incoming calls ("call classification information") and available agents ("agent characteristics") and then performs a "multifactorial optimization" to determine the best pairing. This optimization considers not just skill correspondence but also broader cost-utility functions, including factors that affect long-term call center operation. (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to dynamic, data-driven optimization designed to improve the overall economic efficiency of a communications system rather than just minimizing wait times. (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • Receiving call classification information for a plurality of calls.
    • Representing a plurality of agent characteristics for a plurality of agents.
    • Determining an optimum set of concurrent, mutually exclusive associations (pairings) between agents and calls.
    • This determination must be based on a "multifactorial optimization" of the correspondence between call characteristics and agent characteristics.
    • Controlling the concurrent routing of the calls based on this determination.
  • 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

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the architectural limitations of computer telephony integrated (CTI) systems where the "intelligence" for complex call routing is externalized from the low-level switching hardware. This separation can introduce latencies and inefficiencies, particularly in systems running on non-deterministic operating systems. (’748 Patent, col. 2:6-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an integrated architecture where the intelligent routing algorithm is executed at a low level, within the same system that manages the communications. The system evaluates pairings between a request and available "partners" (e.g., agents) using an "evaluator for valuing pairings" and generates a control signal to establish the connection, enabling real-time, contextually interpreted routing decisions. (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:8-23).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating the intelligent decision-making process with the low-level communications management, the invention aims to reduce system latency and transactional load on external systems, allowing for more responsive and sophisticated routing. (’748 Patent, col. 25:46-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶21). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A method of processing requests comprising: estimating a characteristic of the request.
    • Determining a set of available partners with respective partner characteristics.
    • Evaluating, via an automated processor, pairings of the request with available partners according to an "evaluator for valuing pairings," which is dependent on the request and partner characteristics.
    • Generating a control signal dependent on the evaluation to establish a pairing.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that provides for intelligent call routing. It addresses the need for call centers to manage agent and call queues efficiently, moving beyond simple first-in-first-out logic to incorporate more sophisticated, skill-based routing and cost-utility optimizations. (’253 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:12-19).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony Control System With Intelligent Call Routing" (Issued April 4, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’253 Patent, discloses a communications management system with an input for receiving a communication's classification and a database of agent skills. A processor computes an "optimum agent selection" based on the classification and skills, and directly controls the routing of the communication, aiming to improve upon traditional call distribution schemes. (’7023979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’7023979 Patent (Compl. ¶41).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity using an auction-like optimization. The system defines parameters for each entity and performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one of the entities unavailable for other potential matches. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name or specifically identify any of Defendant's products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. The infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), which were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶42, ¶51). No allegations are made regarding the products' specific features or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement of the patents-in-suit. However, it incorporates its substantive infringement theories by reference to claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the publicly filed complaint. As such, the complaint does not contain sufficient factual detail to populate a claim chart summary or to analyze the narrative infringement theory. (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27, ¶32-33, ¶41-42, ¶50-51).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Questions: A primary point of contention will be establishing the basic facts of how Defendant's accused instrumentalities operate. The complaint's reliance on un-filed exhibits leaves open the fundamental question of what specific products, features, or functions are being accused of infringement.
  • Scope Questions: The asserted patents use abstract, functional language such as "multifactorial optimization" ('420 Patent, Claim 1) and "evaluator for valuing pairings" ('748 Patent, Claim 1). A central dispute may concern whether the routine processing or business logic within Defendant's systems can be characterized as performing these claimed complex optimizations. For example, does a system that considers multiple business rules in a sequence perform a "multifactorial optimization," or does that term require a more sophisticated, integrated calculation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420

  • The Term: "multifactorial optimization"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is the core of the claimed method for selecting an "optimum" agent. The scope of this term will be critical, as it distinguishes the invention from simpler, rule-based routing systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine the level of computational complexity required to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in terms of a "cost-utility function" that can include a variety of factors such as agent cost, training cost, and anticipated outcome, suggesting a broad scope covering any system that weighs multiple variables. (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-20).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples show complex combinatorial analyses and mathematical formulas, suggesting the term may be limited to systems that perform specific, unitary economic calculations rather than merely applying a sequence of sorting rules. (’420 Patent, col. 32:51-60; Tables 1-7).

For U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748

  • The Term: "evaluator for valuing pairings"
  • Context and Importance: This term from independent claim 1 defines the mechanism that assesses the suitability of matching a request with a partner. The dispute will question whether this "evaluator" must be a distinct software module performing a specific valuation or can be read more broadly on any system logic that results in a pairing decision.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the target of a communication can be "defined by an algorithm, rather than a predetermined address or simple rule," which may support an interpretation where any non-trivial decision logic constitutes an "evaluator." (’748 Patent, col. 18:17-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract refers to "economic utility" and maximizing an "aggregate utility," which could support a narrower construction limited to systems that explicitly calculate and compare numerical utility or economic values for potential pairings. (’748 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 patents. 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." (Compl. ¶24, ¶40, ¶48). The complaint references Exhibits 7, 9, and 10 as demonstrating how these materials direct end users. (Compl. ¶24, ¶40, ¶48).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 patents, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement is despite this knowledge, which may form a basis for a post-suit willfulness claim. (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶38-39, ¶47-48).

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

  • A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What are the specific functionalities of the accused products? As the complaint provides no technical details of the accused instrumentalities, discovery will be central to establishing the factual basis for whether Defendant's systems perform the specific types of optimization and valuation required by the claims.
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How broadly can functional terms such as "multifactorial optimization" and "auction" be construed? The case may turn on whether these terms, as defined by the patents' specifications, can read on the commercial business logic and rule-based systems commonly used in the industry, or if they require a more complex, integrated, and explicitly economic calculation that is not present in the accused products.