Patent Armory Inc v. Cubic Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Cubic Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01321, D. Del., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching in telecommunications systems.
• Technical Context: The patents address technology for managing call centers, which is a critical domain for optimizing customer service operations and allocating personnel resources efficiently.
• 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

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

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 (the “’979 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as routing calls based on simple first-in, first-out queues. This can lead to mismatches where calls are routed to "under-skilled" agents who cannot handle the transaction or "over-skilled" agents whose expertise is wasted on a simple call, reducing overall transactional throughput (’979 Patent, col. 3:26-col. 4:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where intelligent call-routing algorithms are integrated directly into the low-level communications switching architecture (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-18). Rather than externalizing complex decisions, a processor within the telephony server itself computes an "optimum agent selection" by analyzing various parameters, such as agent skills and call characteristics, to find the best match for an incoming call (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This architecture is intended to reduce latency and improve routing efficiency (’979 Patent, col. 60:30-40).
• Technical Importance: By embedding intelligence within the core switching system, the invention aimed to enable more dynamic, real-time, and sophisticated call routing than was possible with architectures that separated high-level management software from low-level call processing (’979 Patent, col. 60:49-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • An input for receiving call classification information within a common operating environment.
  • 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, with the selection based on a correspondence between the call classification and agent characteristics.
  • The processor controls the call routing based on its determination.
  • Crucially, the determining and routing functions are performed "within the common operating environment."

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 (the “’086 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the family including the ’979 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of inefficiently matching callers with agents in a communications system (’086 Patent, col. 1:21-col. 4:51). It extends the problem to consider not just the best one-to-one match, but the system-wide economic consequences of that choice.
• 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) using an auction-like mechanism. An automated processor performs an optimization based not only on the quality of the match but also on specific economic concepts: the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract). The auction considers both economic and non-economic factors to determine the optimal pairing (’086 Patent, Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This approach introduces market-based principles to resource allocation in a communications system, allowing for a more globally optimal solution by weighing the value of a specific match against the cost of forgoing other potential matches across the entire system (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing an external exhibit (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • Storing data for a first subset of entities (e.g., callers) and a second subset of entities (e.g., agents).
  • Performing an optimization with an automated processor with respect to at least:
    • An "economic surplus" of a mutually exclusive match between the subsets.
    • An "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate first subset.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim-chart exhibits, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides no details regarding the functionality, operation, or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’979 Patent and direct and induced infringement of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18, 22). However, it does not provide a narrative infringement theory or any specific facts in the body of the complaint. Instead, it states that infringement is detailed in claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4), which were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24). Consequently, a claim-chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  Given the absence of factual allegations regarding the accused products, potential points of contention can only be framed in terms of the patents' claim language.
  • Scope Questions (’979 Patent): A central question may be the scope of the term "common operating environment." The dispute could turn on whether the Defendant's architecture for call processing and agent selection is sufficiently integrated to meet this limitation, as opposed to an architecture where routing intelligence is handled by a physically or logically separate system.
  • Technical Questions (’086 Patent): The infringement analysis may focus on whether the Defendant's system performs the specific algorithmic function of an "optimization with respect to at least an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost." The question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused algorithm calculates or accounts for these specific economic principles, rather than simply performing a more generic "best-fit" or weighted-score analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "common operating environment" (’979 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This architectural limitation appears to be a key element distinguishing the invention from prior art where intelligent control was externalized from the low-level switching system. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis could depend on whether the defendant's agent-selection logic and call-routing control are executed within a single, integrated software and hardware environment.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "common operating environment" without specifying a particular hardware or software architecture, which could support an interpretation covering logically integrated but physically distributed systems.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an architecture where the intelligent control logic shares "the same message queue" as the interface to the voice channel processors, which may suggest a tightly coupled system running under a single OS instance (’979 Patent, col. 59:26-34).

• The Term: "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the nature of the claimed optimization, elevating it beyond a simple one-to-one matching algorithm. Infringement may depend on whether the accused system's matching logic considers the system-wide impact of assigning a particular agent to a particular call, specifically by evaluating the loss of potential value from not assigning that agent to other concurrent or anticipated calls.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system that reserves highly skilled agents for high-value calls implicitly considers "opportunity cost."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes "opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call" as a distinct term (Dc) in a multi-part formula, suggesting a specific, calculated value is required rather than an implicit consideration (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-53).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The basis for this allegation is that the Defendant allegedly distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. For the ’086 Patent, it alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge of infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶20). This allegation may support a claim for enhanced damages based on post-suit conduct but does not allege pre-suit knowledge. No similar knowledge allegation is made with respect to the ’979 Patent.

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

The complaint's lack of factual detail regarding the accused products means the case will turn entirely on evidence produced during discovery. Based on the asserted patents, the dispute suggests two central questions for the court:

• A primary issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the accused system's software for agent selection and call routing operate within a "common operating environment" as required by the ’979 Patent, or does it represent a conventional architecture where high-level logic is external to the low-level communication control?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic function: Does the accused product’s matching algorithm perform the specific, two-part economic optimization required by the ’086 Patent—calculating both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"—or does it employ a fundamentally different technical method for resource allocation?