Patent Armory Inc v. Triwest Healthcare Alliance Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01323, D. Del., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s healthcare management systems infringe patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to advanced call center systems that use skill-based and economic-based criteria to route incoming communications to the most appropriate agent, a critical function in managing large-scale customer and patient interactions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any significant procedural events such as prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	’979 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-07	’086 Patent 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 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 section describes the inefficiencies of traditional call center Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems, which typically route calls on a simple "first-come-first-served" basis ('979 Patent, col. 2:43-45). This can lead to mismatches, such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" who cannot handle the issue or an "over-skilled agent" whose expertise is wasted on a simple query, reducing overall transactional throughput ('979 Patent, col. 4:26-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that integrates "intelligent" decision-making directly into the low-level call switching architecture ('979 Patent, col. 59:10-22). Instead of relying on a separate, high-level computer, the system’s processor uses a "multivariate cost function" to compute an "optimum agent selection" based on a call's classification and a database of agent skills, and then directly controls the routing of the call ('979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This integration is designed to reduce latency and improve the efficiency of matching callers to agents in real time ('979 Patent, col. 60:37-44).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to make call centers more efficient by enabling real-time, multi-factor optimization for call routing, moving beyond simple queuing rules to a more dynamic, skill-based matching paradigm ('979 Patent, col. 3:61-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including at least "exemplary method claims," but does not specify them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications control system having a common operating environment.
  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics.
  • A processor that determines an optimum agent based on a multivariate cost function comparing at least three agents, where the determination is based on a correspondence of the call classification and the agent characteristics.
  • The processor controls the call routing based on the determination.
  • The determining and routing functions are performed within the common operating environment.
• 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: The patent addresses the same call center inefficiencies described in the ’979 Patent, focusing on the challenge of optimally matching incoming tasks (e.g., calls) with available resources (e.g., agents) in a dynamic environment ('086 Patent, col. 3:1-13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention frames the matching problem as an auction that optimizes for economic value ('086 Patent, Abstract). It claims a method where a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) is matched with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus." Crucially, this optimization also considers the "opportunity cost" of the match—that is, the value lost by making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches in the queue ('086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:50-64:2). This allows for a global optimization across multiple concurrent calls, rather than a simple one-to-one local optimization ('086 Patent, col. 65:66-66:5).
• Technical Importance: This method introduced economic principles like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" to the call routing problem, allowing for a more sophisticated, system-wide optimization of resource allocation in a communications center.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify them (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • Storing data for a first subset of entities (e.g., callers) representing "inferential targeting parameters."
  • Storing data for a second subset of entities (e.g., agents) representing "characteristic parameters."
  • Performing an optimization, using an automated processor, with respect to at least an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" of that match’s resulting unavailability.
  • Outputting a signal based 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 accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products," "Exemplary Defendant Products," and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶¶12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). Based on the patents' subject matter and the Defendant's business in healthcare administration, the accused instrumentalities are systems and methods used by Patent Armory Inc v. Triwest Healthcare Alliance Corp to manage and route electronic communications, such as telephone calls from patients or providers. The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of both patents but relies on incorporating by reference external claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

’979 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A key dispute may arise over the term "common operating environment" (Claim 1). The patent specification describes an architecture where the intelligent control logic and the low-level voice switching are integrated on a single PC server platform to reduce latency ('979 Patent, col. 59:60-60:33). A question for the court will be whether this term can be construed to cover modern, distributed architectures (e.g., cloud-based microservices or geographically separate data centers) that Defendant may use, which might not share a single, co-located operating environment in the manner described in the patent.
  • Technical Question: Claim 1 requires determining an optimum agent based on a "multivariate cost function." The infringement analysis will raise the question of what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems use a function that considers multiple variables simultaneously to calculate a "cost," as opposed to applying a simpler set of sequential rules, priority flags, or a non-cost-based algorithm to select an agent.

’086 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: Claim 1 requires an optimization with respect to "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." A central issue for claim construction and infringement will be whether the accused system's routing logic calculates these specific economic concepts. The analysis will question if Defendant's system, even if highly optimized, uses different business or technical metrics (e.g., minimizing wait time, maximizing customer satisfaction scores) that fall outside the patent’s explicit economic framework.
  • Technical Question: The ’086 Patent frames the matching process as an "auction" ('086 Patent, Title). A technical question will be whether the accused system’s process for selecting an agent for a call functions as an "auction" as contemplated by the patent, which may suggest a mechanism involving competitive bidding (even if automated) or a similar market-based selection process among agents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’979 Patent

• The Term: "common operating environment"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted architectural novelty, which distinguishes it from prior systems where high-level management software was separate from low-level switching hardware. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether modern, distributed systems can infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a single physical machine. A party could argue it means any system where the determining and routing functions are communicatively and functionally integrated to operate in a coordinated, low-latency manner.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the host as "a PC server having a main processor... and one or more voice channel processors," with control information passed over a PCI bus ('979 Patent, col. 59:60-60:15). This description of a specific, co-located hardware configuration could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to a single, physically integrated system.

For the ’086 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the objective of the claimed optimization. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system is shown to calculate a metric that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific type of economic calculation, rather than a general-purpose optimization.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "economic surplus" should be interpreted broadly to encompass any quantifiable measure of value or utility derived from a match, such as improved customer satisfaction, reduced call handling time, or increased sales, which are all of economic importance to a business.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract’s linkage of "economic surplus" with "opportunity cost" suggests a more formal definition rooted in microeconomic theory. The detailed discussion of "cost-utility" functions could support an interpretation requiring an explicit calculation that balances quantifiable benefits against costs ('086 Patent, col. 65:1-13).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. It asserts that Defendant had actual knowledge of infringement at least upon service of the complaint and that it distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶20-22).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has continued to infringe the ’086 Patent despite having actual knowledge from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶21). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. The complaint also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer H.i).

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

• A central issue will be one of architectural scope: can the ’979 Patent's requirement for a "common operating environment," described in the specification as an integrated CTI server, be construed to cover the Defendant's potentially modern, distributed healthcare management architecture?
• A key question will be one of functional and economic definition: does the accused system's agent-selection logic perform an optimization for "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as required by the ’086 Patent, or does it use distinct technical or business metrics that fall outside the patent's specific economic framework?
• Given the complaint’s reliance on external exhibits not filed with the court, a primary procedural and evidentiary question will be: what specific technical evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce to demonstrate that the accused systems actually perform the multi-faceted "multivariate cost function" (’979 Patent) and "auction"-based optimization (’086 Patent) recited in the claims?