Patent Armory Inc v. W R Berkley Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: W. R. Berkley Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01324, D. Del., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, maintains an established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in telecommunications systems, particularly call centers, by using skill-based and economic criteria to match incoming tasks with available agents.
• 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,” issued April 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems used in call centers. These systems often employ simple routing rules (e.g., first-come-first-served) that fail to account for agents’ varying skills, leading to problems such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" or an "over-skilled agent," which reduces overall throughput and efficiency (’979 Patent, col. 3:61-4:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications management system that integrates intelligent decision-making directly into the call routing architecture. The system receives a "communications classification" for an incoming call and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" by comparing the call's needs against a database of agent skill scores and skill weights (’979 Patent, Abstract). This computation is performed within the same low-level telephony control system that handles the call switching, aiming to reduce latency associated with externalizing such decisions (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-21).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to improve call center performance by embedding complex, skill-based optimization logic within the core switching platform, rather than treating it as a separate, high-level management function (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s core system.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A communications control system with 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 and that controls call routing, with both the determination and routing performed within the common operating environment.

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, which is a continuation of the application that led to the ’979 Patent, addresses the limitations of simple skill-based routing by noting that such systems may not achieve optimal long-term outcomes, as they often fail to account for economic factors like training benefits or opportunity costs (’086 Patent, col. 3:1-4:6; col. 1:5-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for matching entities (e.g., callers and agents) by performing an automated optimization framed as an "auction." This process considers not only the skill-based fit between entities but also the "economic surplus" generated by a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one match versus another. This allows the system to balance immediate efficiency with other objectives, such as agent training (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 69:10-70:10).
• Technical Importance: This technology reframes the resource allocation problem as a formal economic auction, enabling a more sophisticated optimization that can weigh multiple, competing objectives beyond simple skill matching (’086 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Storing data for a first subset of entities (e.g., callers) and a second subset of entities (e.g., agents).
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor.
  • The optimization must consider at least an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" associated with the unavailability of an entity for an alternate match.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by name. It refers to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, there is insufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations for both the ’979 and ’086 patents are made by incorporating by reference claim charts from Exhibits 3 and 4, which are not publicly available with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). The complaint itself contains no specific mapping of accused product features to claim limitations.

• Narrative Infringement Theory (’979 Patent): The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes one or more claims of the ’979 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges direct infringement occurs when Defendant’s employees internally test and use these products (Compl. ¶13). The complaint asserts that these products practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶14).
• Narrative Infringement Theory (’086 Patent): The complaint makes parallel allegations for the ’086 Patent, stating that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and/or importing the accused products, as well as by having its employees internally use them (Compl. ¶¶18-19). It alleges these products practice the technology claimed in the ’086 Patent and satisfy all claim elements (Compl. ¶23).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint provides no factual detail about the accused products or their operation, a primary question for the court will be evidentiary. The plaintiff will need to produce evidence identifying the accused systems and demonstrating how they meet each limitation of the asserted claims.
  • Scope Questions: Without specific infringement allegations, any analysis of potential scope mismatches is speculative. However, litigation involving these patents may raise questions regarding whether Defendant's internal business systems (assuming that is what is accused) perform the specific type of optimization described in the patents, or whether they perform a technically distinct function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’979 Patent

• The Term: "multivariate cost function" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed optimization process. Its construction will determine the type of analysis an accused system must perform to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either broadly cover any multi-factor agent comparison or be limited to a more specific type of economic cost analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not define the term, suggesting it could be given its plain and ordinary meaning: any function that considers multiple variables to produce a "cost" or score for comparison.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes normalizing disparate factors such as "training cost," "reward or punishment," and "anticipated outcome" into a common metric called "cost" (’979 Patent, col. 65:13-26). It also provides an exemplary formula incorporating specific "agent cost factors" (’979 Patent, col. 65:1-5). Parties may argue this context limits the term to functions that explicitly model economic or quasi-economic costs, rather than any generic scoring algorithm.

’086 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is a required input for the claimed optimization. Whether an accused system calculates an "economic surplus" will be a critical infringement question. The patent's title and abstract frame the invention as an "auction," suggesting this term may carry a specific economic meaning.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not define the term, which may support an argument that it refers to any calculated net benefit or value derived from a match.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract explicitly refers to "an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (’086 Patent, Abstract). This, combined with the context of an "auction," may support a construction that limits the term to its more formal definition in economics, such as a measure of the total value created by a transaction for all parties involved.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21). The allegation of knowledge for inducement is predicated on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). No indirect infringement is alleged for the ’979 Patent.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" of the ’086 Patent since the service of the complaint and has continued to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶20-21). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement. No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge for either patent. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional," a remedy often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl., Prayer H.i).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement theories are contained entirely within exhibits that were not filed with the court. A threshold question will be whether the plaintiff can produce, through discovery, specific evidence showing that the Defendant’s internal business systems perform the precise optimization and auction-based matching methods required by the asserted claims.
• A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of key claim terms such as "multivariate cost function" (’979 Patent) and "economic surplus" (’086 Patent). The degree to which these terms are construed broadly to cover any multi-factor comparison, or narrowly to require specific economic modeling as described in the specifications, will fundamentally shape the infringement analysis.
• For the ’086 patent, a key question will be intent for inducement: The complaint alleges inducement based on knowledge gained only upon service of the lawsuit. This raises the question of whether providing standard product documentation for an internal system can be proven to constitute the specific intent required to encourage infringement by others (e.g., employees), particularly when pre-suit knowledge is not alleged.