DCT

1:25-cv-01320

Patent Armory Inc v. NWN Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01320, D. Del., 10/29/2025
  • 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’s products infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing in telephony systems and auction-based methods for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of call center management and resource allocation, a field focused on optimizing the connection between incoming requests and available service agents or resources.
  • 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
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2025-10-29 Complaint Filed

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’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, and problems arising from static agent groupings, which reduce the overall transactional throughput of the call center (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, col. 4:25-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system where the call routing intelligence is integrated into the low-level switching architecture. Instead of following simple rules, the system receives a “communications classification,” consults a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an “optimum agent selection” before directly controlling the call’s routing ('979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This integration of complex decision-making within the switching system itself aims to reduce latency and improve efficiency ('979 Patent, col. 59:8-23).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from externally managed, high-latency call distribution logic toward real-time, data-driven optimization performed within the core telephony processing environment ('979 Patent, col. 60:8-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to “Exemplary ’979 Patent Claims” detailed in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology and includes the following essential elements:

  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics.
  • A processor for determining an optimum agent for a call based on a multivariate cost function that compares at least three agents, based on a correspondence of the call classification and the agent characteristics.
  • The processor also controls the call routing in dependence on the determination.
  • The determining and routing functions are performed within a common operating environment.

The complaint states Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional 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 inefficiencies in matching systems, particularly in contexts like internet auctions where factors such as system latency and the absence of live psychological cues can lead to suboptimal outcomes ('086 Patent, col. 37:5-22). This extends the problem of matching a caller to the best agent to a more generalized resource allocation problem.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a service request) with one of a plurality of second entities (e.g., service providers). The matching is performed via an automated optimization or "auction" that considers not only the direct value of a given match (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for other potential, future matches ('086 Patent, Abstract; col. 65:48-61). This system-wide perspective aims to achieve a more globally optimal allocation of resources.
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method moves beyond simple best-fit matching by incorporating a calculation of opportunity cost, allowing a system to dynamically value and reserve high-capability resources for anticipated high-value tasks ('086 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint references “Exemplary ’086 Patent Claims” in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

  • Storing in memory multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first subset of entities.
  • Storing in memory multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities.
  • Performing, with an automated processor, an optimization of a match between the subsets with respect to at least an economic surplus and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate subset.
  • Outputting a signal in dependence on the optimization.

The complaint states Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in external exhibits not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. The allegations are limited to assertions that the unidentified products practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific factual basis for its allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • ’979 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes one or more claims of the ’979 Patent by making, using, selling, or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges that Defendant’s employees directly infringe by internally testing and using these products (Compl. ¶13).
  • ’086 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe the ’086 Patent through its "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶18). In addition, it alleges induced infringement based on Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • For the ’979 Patent, a central technical question may be whether the accused products perform an "optimization" using a "multivariate cost function" as required by the claims, or if they employ a different, potentially non-infringing logic, such as a sequential set of predefined rules. The scope of "common operating environment" could also be a point of dispute, depending on the architecture of the accused system.
    • For the ’086 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the accused system calculates an "opportunity cost," which requires considering the value of not making a particular match in favor of a potential future match. This raises the evidentiary question of how Plaintiff will demonstrate that the accused system performs this specific, system-aware calculation, as distinct from merely selecting the best available match at a given moment.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from the ’979 Patent: "multivariate cost function"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the nature of the "intelligent" routing. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the logic in the accused system qualifies as a "multivariate cost function." Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its system uses a simpler, hierarchical rule set that does not rise to the level of a mathematical cost function.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the function normalizes "disparate factors" into a common metric called "cost" to allow for "numeric analysis," which may support an interpretation that covers any algorithm weighing multiple variables to achieve an optimal outcome ('979 Patent, col. 65:21-25).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary formula, An=Max[Acn1∑(rs1ans1)+Acn2], which includes agent cost factors and a weighted sum of skill scores ('979 Patent, col. 65:4-5). This could support an argument that the term is limited to a specific class of mathematical formulas.

  • Term from the ’086 Patent: "opportunity cost"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the patent’s scope, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from conventional "best-fit" matching algorithms. Infringement will require showing that the accused system evaluates the system-wide consequence of allocating a resource, not just the quality of the immediate match.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains the concept by noting that a "selected agent might be more valuable for another matter" ('086 Patent, col. 65:48-51). This language may support a broader construction where any mechanism that reserves higher-skilled agents for anticipated future needs, rather than assigning them to the first available task, satisfies the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses a formula where "Dc represents the opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call," suggesting a quantifiable value ('086 Patent, col. 65:56-61). This could support a narrower construction requiring an explicit calculation of the potential value lost by making one match over another.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The alleged basis is Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patent (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Defendant has actual knowledge of the ’086 Patent at least as of the service of the complaint and "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21). This allegation of post-suit knowledge could form the basis for a future claim of willful infringement. The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a declaration of an exceptional case under § 285 (Compl. ¶¶ F, H(i)).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical function and scope: Does the accused system's matching logic perform the specific, multi-factorial "optimization" required by the claims (e.g., using a "multivariate cost function" or calculating "opportunity cost"), or does it operate on a simpler, hierarchical rule-based system that falls outside the claim scope?
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific product identification, a central question will be what discovery evidence Plaintiff can obtain and present to demonstrate the internal algorithmic operations of Defendant’s accused systems to meet the specific functional limitations of the asserted claims.
  • For the ’086 patent, the induced infringement claim will raise the question of specific intent: Do the defendant's user-facing materials contain instructions or encouragement that are sufficiently specific to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly intended for its customers to perform the patented method?