DCT

1:26-cv-00034

Patent Armory Inc v. Turo Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00034, D. Del., 01/12/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation with an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s peer-to-peer car sharing platform infringes patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
  • Technical Context: The patents originate in the field of telephony call center management, focusing on optimizing the matching of incoming calls to agents based on skills and economic factors.
  • 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
2026-01-12 Complaint Filed

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 (’979 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiency of conventional call centers that use simple rules like "first-in, first-out" or "longest-idle-agent" for call distribution (Compl., Ex. 1, ’979 Patent, col. 3:1-13). These systems fail to account for agents having different skills (e.g., language proficiency, technical expertise), leading to problems with "under-skilled," "over-skilled," or statically grouped agents, which reduces transactional throughput (’979 Patent, col. 3:26-4:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "communications management system" that intelligently routes calls by computing an "optimum agent selection" (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system receives a "communications classification," consults a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and uses a processor to select the best agent for the call (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system can optimize for short-term efficiency or long-term goals, such as routing a call to a trainee to build skills (’979 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This skill-based routing approach represented a move beyond simple queuing logic to a more dynamic and efficient model for managing call center resources by matching specific caller needs to specific agent capabilities (’979 Patent, col. 4:61-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’979 Patent and incorporates its specific allegations by reference to an external claim chart exhibit not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14-15). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

  • A communications management system comprising an input for receiving a communications classification;
  • a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification;
  • a database of agent skill scores; and
  • a processor, for computing, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection, the processor directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.

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 (’086 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same call center inefficiencies described in the ’979 Patent, such as suboptimal matching of callers to agents with varying skill sets (Compl., Ex. 2, ’086 Patent, col. 3:25-4:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention abstracts the call routing problem into a more general economic framework. It describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) via an "auction" (’086 Patent, col. 1:1-8). The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for a different potential match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach recasts skill-based matching as a formal economic optimization, allowing for more sophisticated resource allocation that considers the value of alternative pairings, a concept applicable to various two-sided marketplaces beyond traditional call centers (’086 Patent, col. 65:56-66:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’086 Patent, referencing an external claim chart exhibit not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23-24). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name them, instead incorporating them by reference to external exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18). Based on the Defendant’s business, the accused instrumentality is presumably the Turo online platform, including its website and mobile applications.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products. Publicly, Turo operates a peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace that connects vehicle owners ("hosts") with individuals seeking to rent vehicles ("guests"). The platform facilitates searching, booking, communication, and payment between these two sets of users. The complaint makes no allegations regarding the product's market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the entirety of its substantive allegations by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which are claim chart documents that were not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 23-24). The complaint’s narrative theory is limited to conclusory statements that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). Without access to the referenced exhibits, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the technology described in the patents and the nature of the accused product, the infringement analysis may raise the following questions:
    • Scope Questions ('979 Patent): The ’979 Patent is framed in the context of telephony and call centers. A central question will be whether Turo’s web-based marketplace for matching vehicle hosts and renters constitutes a "telephony control system" and whether its users (e.g., hosts) can be construed as "agents" within the meaning of the claims (’979 Patent, Abstract).
    • Technical Questions ('086 Patent): The ’086 Patent claims a specific form of economic optimization. A key factual question will be what evidence the complaint provides that Turo’s platform performs an "auction" that calculates an "economic surplus" while also accounting for the "opportunity cost" of forgoing an "alternate first entity," as required by the claim (’086 Patent, Abstract). The analysis will question whether Turo's matching algorithm performs the specific functions recited or operates on a different technical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "telephony control system" (’979 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the ’979 Patent to Turo’s web-based platform appears to depend on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to cover systems beyond traditional telephone networks. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the primary basis for a potential scope mismatch between the patent and the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses routing "communications" generally and is not exclusively limited to voice calls, which may support an interpretation covering various forms of electronic messaging or connection requests (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification is replete with references to "call center," "ACD" (Automatic Call Distribution), "PBX" (Private Branch Exchange), and other telephony-specific terminology, suggesting the invention was conceived for and is limited to that environment (’979 Patent, col. 2:16-58).
  • The Term: "auction" (’086 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’086 Patent hinges on whether Turo’s process for matching hosts and guests constitutes an "auction." The term's construction will determine whether Turo’s dynamic pricing or matching algorithms fall within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the matching process in abstract terms of optimizing "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," which could be argued to describe any competitive resource allocation system, not just a formal, price-based auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the concept to call center agents "bidding" for a caller, potentially on a commission basis, which suggests a more conventional competitive bidding process (’086 Patent, col. 62:51-64).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶ 21). The allegation of knowledge and intent is predicated on Defendant being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶ 22).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Defendant obtained "actual knowledge" of the ’086 Patent upon service of the complaint and "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite that knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement (Compl. ¶ H.i).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope and analogy: Can patent claims rooted in the technical context of 2000s-era telephony call centers (’979 Patent) be construed to cover a modern, web-based, peer-to-peer marketplace? The case may turn on whether terms like "telephony control system" and "agent" can be applied by analogy to Turo's platform and its users.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: For the more abstract ’086 Patent, does the Turo platform’s matching algorithm actually perform the specific multi-factor optimization claimed—balancing "economic surplus" with "opportunity cost" in a process analogous to an "auction"—or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation?
  3. A central procedural question will be how the Plaintiff substantiates its infringement allegations, which, as pleaded, rely entirely on incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits that have not been made public with the complaint. The sufficiency of these bare-bones allegations may become an early point of contention.