Patent Armory Inc v. Alorica Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Alorica Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01319, D. Del., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s call center operations infringe patents related to intelligent, skill-based call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center management systems designed to optimize the matching of incoming communications (e.g., customer calls) with available agents based on skills, costs, and other variables.
• 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

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Application Filing
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issue Date
2010-03-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Application Filing
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issue Date
2025-10-29	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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple "first-come-first-served" routing, which can lead to mismatches such as calls being routed to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents and problems stemming from rigid, "static grouping" of agent teams (ʼ979 Patent, col. 4:26-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intelligent routing system integrated at a low level within the telephony control architecture. The system receives a classification for an incoming call, consults data structures of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" based on a multivariate cost function, thereby directly controlling the routing of the call within a "common operating environment" (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 60:25-30).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve call center resource utilization by replacing simple queuing with dynamic, multi-factor optimization performed within the core communications switching system, reducing latency associated with external high-level management software (’979 Patent, col. 59:9-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications control system within a common operating environment.
  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics.
  • A processor for determining an optimum agent based on a multivariate cost function comparing at least three agents.
  • The processor also controls the call routing, with the determination and routing functions performed within the common operating environment.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

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

• Issued: September 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiencies of separating high-level intelligent routing decisions from the low-level systems that execute the call switching, which can introduce latencies and architectural complexity (’086 Patent, col. 2:15-20). It also notes the challenge of balancing short-term efficiency with long-term goals like agent training (’086 Patent, col. 4:1-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by modeling the selection process as an auction. It involves defining parameters for both sets of entities and performing an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of forgoing other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract). This economic optimization is performed by an automated processor to select the best pairing.
• Technical Importance: This method provides a sophisticated framework for resource allocation that goes beyond simple weighted-skill scoring by incorporating economic principles like surplus and opportunity cost, allowing for more nuanced, value-driven optimization of pairings (’086 Patent, col. 63:1-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for matching a first subset of entities with a second subset.
  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for the first subset.
  • Storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for the second subset.
  • Performing an optimization, using an automated processor, with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and the "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 additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products, services, or systems by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in referenced exhibits not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶17, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant Alorica Inc. is making, using, selling, and/or importing infringing products (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). As Alorica is a major provider of call center and business process outsourcing services, the accused instrumentalities are presumably the software systems, platforms, and methods it uses to manage customer communications and route calls to its agents. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of both the ’979 and ’086 Patents but incorporates the specific factual basis by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27). The narrative theory alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without the referenced claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions (’979 Patent): A central dispute may concern the claim requirement that the intelligent determination and routing functions are "performed within the common operating environment." The litigation will likely explore whether Defendant's routing logic is executed within the same low-level telephony control system that manages the call, as described in the patent, or whether it resides in a separate, high-level software application that merely passes instructions to the switch.
  • Economic Modeling Questions (’086 Patent): A key technical question will be whether Defendant’s agent-selection algorithm performs the specific economic calculations required by the claims. The analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant's system calculates an "economic surplus" and considers "opportunity cost," or if it uses a more conventional weighted-scoring model that Plaintiff may argue is equivalent.
  • Evidentiary Questions (Both Patents): Given the complaint’s lack of factual detail, the primary contention at the outset will be evidentiary. The case will depend on what discovery reveals about the architecture, algorithms, and specific operation of Defendant’s call management systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "common operating environment" (’979 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’979 Patent's asserted novelty, which distinguishes itself from prior art where intelligent routing was externalized to high-level systems. The definition of this term will determine whether the patent reads on modern, potentially distributed architectures or is limited to the specific integrated CTI server described.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the architecture "typically allows the computing platform to run a modern, non-deterministic operating system, such as Windows 2000," which may support an interpretation where any software running on the same host server as the telephony interface is within the "common environment" (’979 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that its architecture allows the system to operate "under the same instance of the operating system, for example sharing the same message queue," which could support a more restrictive definition requiring tight software integration between the routing logic and the telephony control process (’979 Patent, col. 60:25-30).
• The Term: "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: These terms define the nature of the claimed optimization. The infringement analysis for the ’086 patent may turn on whether a standard skill-based scoring algorithm can be characterized as calculating these specific economic values. Practitioners may focus on these terms because they appear to require a specific type of auction-based or value-based calculation beyond simple weighted matching.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides cost function formulas using generic "agent cost factors" and other variables that could be argued to represent any system that assigns quantitative values to different outcomes, potentially broadening the definition of "economic surplus" (’086 Patent, col. 65:1-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title, abstract, and detailed description are grounded in the language of auctions and economic optimization. This context may support a narrower definition requiring an explicit calculation of value minus cost ("surplus") and a consideration of the value lost by not assigning a resource to its next-best use ("opportunity cost") (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:44-51).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). Knowledge is alleged to have been established "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16, ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶14-15, ¶23-24). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Technical Implementation: With a complaint devoid of specific factual allegations regarding the accused systems, the central threshold issue will be one of evidence. The case will turn on what discovery reveals about the actual architecture and algorithms of Defendant’s call center platforms and whether Plaintiff can map those technical realities to the specific elements of the asserted claims.
2. A Definitional Question of Architectural Scope: A core legal issue for the ’979 Patent will be the construction of "common operating environment." The court will need to determine if this claim language is limited to the tightly integrated computer-telephony server architecture of the early 2000s or if it can be interpreted to cover more modern, distributed systems where routing logic and call control may be functionally, but not architecturally, integrated.
3. A Functional Question of Algorithmic Equivalence: For the ’086 Patent, a key dispute will likely be whether Defendant's agent-assignment system, which may use a form of multi-factor scoring, performs the specific function required by the claims: an optimization based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." This raises the question of whether a conventional weighted-skill algorithm is functionally and legally equivalent to the patent's auction-based economic model.