Patent Armory Inc v. Principal Financial Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Principal Financial Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01322, D. Del., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and its maintenance of an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, by using algorithms to match incoming tasks (e.g., customer calls) with available agents based on skills and economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. The allegations for willful infringement and inducement are based solely on knowledge gained from the service of the complaint itself.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	’979 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-07	’086 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-27	’086 Patent 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 (’979 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, and the inflexibility of "static grouping" of agents, which can reduce transactional throughput (’979 Patent, col. 3:25-4:1). It notes that conventional systems often externalize complex routing logic, creating potential latencies and performance issues (’979 Patent, col. 1:45-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that integrates intelligent routing directly into the telephony control architecture (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-15). The system uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" by analyzing a "communications classification" against databases of agent skills and skill weights, and then directly controls the call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract). This process can involve optimizing a cost-utility function that considers factors beyond simple availability, as illustrated in the patent’s flowchart (e.g., Fig. 1, steps 308, 312).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve call center efficiency by making more sophisticated, real-time routing decisions at a lower level of the system architecture, reducing reliance on separate, high-level management software and minimizing communication delays (’979 Patent, col. 60:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (’Compl. ¶12). Independent method claim 11 is representative of the core inventive method.
• Independent Claim 11:
  • Receiving a communications classification for a received call.
  • Accessing a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification.
  • Accessing a database of agent skill scores.
  • Computing, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection.
  • Directly controlling a routing of information representing the received call.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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: Similar to the ’979 Patent, with which it shares a specification, the ’086 Patent addresses the technical problem of efficiently allocating resources (e.g., call center agents) to tasks (e.g., incoming calls) in a way that maximizes value and accounts for competing demands (’086 Patent, col. 3:25-4:1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention reframes the resource allocation problem as an auction. It describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization. This optimization considers not only the value of a potential match, defined as an "economic surplus," but also the "opportunity cost" of making that match—that is, the cost of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract). The system uses processors to execute this multifactorial optimization within a common operating environment, as depicted in the patent's figures (’086 Patent, Fig. 3-4).
• Technical Importance: By treating resource allocation as an auction that includes opportunity cost, the system aims to achieve a more globally optimal distribution of agents to calls, rather than simply making the best match for a single call in isolation (’086 Patent, col. 52:10-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶18). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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 second subset of entities.
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor with respect to at least an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second subset for an alternate match.
  • Outputting a signal dependent on the optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services in its main body (Compl. ¶¶1-26). It states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are identified in chart exhibits attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶18). However, these exhibits were not filed with the public version of the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its substantive infringement allegations by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be produced. The infringement theory is presented below in narrative form. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Narrative Summary

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’979 and ’086 Patents by making, using, selling, and testing unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" that practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶12, ¶13, ¶18, ¶19). For the ’086 Patent, the complaint further alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes product literature and website materials that instruct end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the ’086 Patent will be whether the accused system performs an "auction" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," as those terms are used in the patent. The analysis may explore whether Defendant's system uses a different, non-auction-based logic for resource allocation that falls outside the scope of the claims.
• Technical Questions: For the ’979 Patent, a key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system computes an "optimum agent selection" as required by the claim. The dispute may center on whether the accused system's routing logic rises to the level of "optimization" or is a more conventional, rules-based matching process. The requirement that the system "directly" controls routing may also be a point of contention, raising questions about the system's architecture and the level at which routing decisions are executed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’979 Patent

• The Term: "optimum agent selection" (from Claim 11)
• Context and Importance: This term is the core functional step of the claimed method. Its definition will be critical to determining whether the accused system’s routing algorithm performs the specific type of computation required by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no detail on how the accused system selects agents.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the optimization is based on a "cost-utility function," which could be interpreted broadly to cover various methods of weighing factors (’979 Patent, col. 4:60-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide specific examples of this optimization, such as a "short term" optimization when the call center is near capacity versus a "long term" optimization that includes training value, which could support a narrower construction requiring a multi-modal or context-dependent calculation (’979 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 308, 312).

For the ’086 Patent

• The Term: "opportunity cost" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the claimed invention from simple "best match" systems by requiring consideration of the cost of forgoing other potential matches. Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused system calculates or otherwise accounts for this specific economic concept.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself frames the term broadly as "an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate subset of the plurality of first entities" (’086 Patent, col. 76:1-4). This could be argued to cover any algorithm that considers the impact of a match on the broader pool of available agents.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and the claim's emphasis on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" together suggest a formal, auction-based economic model. This could support an argument that the term requires a specific type of economic calculation, not just a general consideration of agent availability.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the patent's claims (Compl. ¶21).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’086 Patent based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶20-21). The allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct rather than any pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," which are rooted in auction theory, be construed to cover the routing logic used in the accused systems? The case may turn on whether Defendant’s technology performs a true economic optimization or a more conventional skill-based matching function.
2. A second central issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused technology perform the claimed "optimum agent selection" (’979 Patent) or is it a simpler, predetermined rules engine? The analysis will likely focus on the degree of dynamism and computation involved in the accused system's agent-selection process.
3. A significant evidentiary and procedural question arises from the complaint's structure: by alleging infringement through external exhibits that were not publicly filed, the complaint withholds the factual basis for its claims from public view. This raises the question of whether the pleading provides sufficient notice under federal rules and how Plaintiff will substantiate its claims that the unspecified products meet the specific limitations of the patents-in-suit.