Patent Armory Inc v. Teleflora LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Teleflora LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01241, D. Del., 10/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and maintains an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching, technologies often used in sophisticated call center and communications management systems.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing the connection between incoming communications (e.g., customer calls) and available agents by considering agent skills, system load, economic factors, and training opportunities.
• Key Procedural History: No significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	’979 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-07	’086 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-07	’979 Patent Application Filing Date
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issue Date
2010-03-08	’086 Patent Application Filing Date
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued April 4, 2006 (’979 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call center routing, where simple rules like "first-come-first-served" lead to mismatches between caller needs and agent skills, a situation the patent refers to as the "under-skilled agent problem," the "over-skilled agent problem," and the "static grouping" problem (’979 Patent, col. 3:55-4:3). These mismatches reduce the overall transactional throughput and efficiency of the call center (’979 Patent, col. 4:55-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an integrated "intelligent switching architecture" where the complex logic for optimizing agent selection is performed at a low level, within the same computing environment as the call switching and management functions (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-22). This system uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" by applying a "multivariate cost function" that considers caller information ("call classification") and agent skills ("agent characteristics"), and then directly controls the call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract; ’979 Patent, col. 73:40-74:2). This architecture contrasts with prior systems where intelligent routing was "externalized" to a separate, high-level computer, creating latencies (’979 Patent, col. 1:49-56).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the real-time performance and efficiency of skill-based routing by reducing communication latencies between the decision-making logic and the call-switching hardware.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least one independent claim, exemplified here by Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • An input for receiving call classification information;
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics;
  • A processor that determines an optimum agent for a call based on a multivariate cost function comparing at least three agents, and controls the call routing in dependence on that determination;
  • Wherein the determining and routing functions are performed within a "common operating environment."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent builds on the concept of matching entities (e.g., a caller to an agent) by introducing economic principles. Simple skill-based matching does not account for the economic value of a potential pairing or the cost of assigning a highly capable agent to a low-value task when a more valuable task is pending (’086 Patent, Abstract; ’086 Patent, col. 63:55-64:1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for matching entities using an auction-like process that considers both qualitative and economic factors. It performs an "automated optimization" based on "multivalued scalar data" representing the first entity's needs ("inferential targeting parameters") and the second entities' capabilities ("characteristic parameters") (’086 Patent, Abstract). Crucially, the optimization accounts for not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that match—specifically, the cost of the agent's resulting unavailability for a different potential match (’086 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This method moves beyond simple best-fit skill matching to a more sophisticated economic optimization, allowing a system to allocate resources (agents) in a way that aims to maximize overall value or surplus for the entire system, not just for a single transaction.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least one independent claim, exemplified here by Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim) Elements:
  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first subset of entities (e.g., calls);
  • Storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for a second subset of entities (e.g., agents);
  • Performing an optimization with an automated processor with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for an alternate match;
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts provided as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). However, these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The complaint alleges that these unidentified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). No specific details regarding the functionality, operation, or market context of the accused instrumentalities are provided in the body of the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific infringement allegations beyond incorporating by reference claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory is summarily stated as the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• ’979 Patent - Architectural Scope: A central question may be whether the accused system performs its intelligent routing and agent-selection logic "within the common operating environment" of the low-level communication switching system, as required by Claim 1. The dispute could turn on the degree of architectural integration between the defendant's decision-making software and its call-handling hardware or software.
• ’086 Patent - Economic Functionality: An issue for the ’086 Patent will be whether the defendant's system performs an optimization that specifically considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." The analysis may focus on whether the accused system's matching algorithm is a simple skill-based system or if it incorporates the specific economic calculations required by the claim.
• Evidentiary Basis: Given the lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint's text, a primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient technical evidence from discovery to demonstrate the internal architecture and algorithmic functionality of Defendant's systems to meet the limitations of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’979 Patent, Claim 1: "common operating environment"

Context and Importance

This term is central to the patent's asserted point of novelty, which distinguishes its integrated architecture from prior art that "externalize[s]" intelligent functions (’979 Patent, col. 1:49-56). The definition of this term will determine the required level of integration between the agent-selection logic and the call-routing function.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term simply means processes running on the same server or under the control of the same primary operating system, as the patent describes a host PC server with a main processor and voice channel processors (’979 Patent, col. 59:60-60:2).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a more tightly coupled relationship, noting that the system operates "under the same instance of the operating system, for example sharing the same message queue, as the interface between the main processor and the voice channel processor(s)" (’979 Patent, col. 59:26-34). This could support an argument that a more specific and direct software relationship is required.

’086 Patent, Claim 1: "opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate subset of the plurality of first entities"

Context and Importance

This term defines a key economic input for the claimed optimization. Infringement may depend on whether the accused system calculates or considers the value lost by assigning an agent to one call instead of another potential, pending call. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific, forward-looking economic calculation beyond simple skill matching.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language covers any system that prioritizes agents for higher-value pending calls, even if an explicit "cost" is not calculated, as long as the system accounts for the value of alternate pairings (’086 Patent, col. 51:15-21).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "opportunity cost," a specific term of art in economics. A party could argue this requires a concrete calculation of the foregone value from not assigning an agent to a different pending call, as described in the specification's cost functions which include an "opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call" (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-45).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references Exhibit 4 for materials demonstrating this alleged inducement (Compl. ¶21).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," and that Defendant’s continued infringement despite this knowledge supports a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶20-21, F). This alleges willfulness based on post-suit knowledge.

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

1. Architectural Integration: For the ’979 Patent, a core issue will be one of technical scope: does the accused system's agent-selection logic operate "within the common operating environment" of its low-level telecommunications processing, or is it an externalized, high-level function that falls outside the claim's architectural requirement?
2. Economic Optimization: For the ’086 Patent, a key question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's matching algorithm perform a multi-faceted optimization that specifically accounts for "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of agent unavailability for alternate tasks, or does it utilize a simpler, non-economic logic based primarily on skill-matching?
3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given the complaint’s reliance on incorporating non-public exhibits, a threshold issue for the litigation will be one of proof: can the Plaintiff, through discovery, obtain and present sufficient technical evidence to map the specific, internal operations of the Defendant's accused systems to the detailed functional and architectural limitations of the asserted claims?