Patent Armory Inc v. Carestream Dental LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Carestream Dental LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Advanced Technology Law; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00816, N.D. Ga., 02/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe five patents related to intelligent communication routing and systems for matching entities in an auction.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in telecommunications, particularly in call center environments, by using economic and auction-based principles to match incoming tasks with available agents.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-07	Earliest Priority Date for ’420, ’979, ’253, ’086 Patents
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issued
2006-04-03	Earliest Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2007-09-11	’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19	’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26	’748 Patent Issued
2025-02-18	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenges of managing call centers, including the need to efficiently route incoming calls to the most appropriate agents based on their skills and availability, a process known as "skill-based routing" (’420 Patent, col. 3:4-10). Conventional systems struggled to optimize this matching process, leading to inefficiencies like under-skilled or over-skilled agent assignments (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an auction-based system to solve this matching problem. It defines quantitative parameters ("multivalued scalar data") for both the incoming task (e.g., a call) and the available resources (e.g., agents) and then performs an "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" generated and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential tasks, effectively creating a real-time market for assigning resources (’420 Patent, col. 21:50–22:4).
• Technical Importance: This approach frames the technical problem of call routing as an economic optimization, allowing for more dynamic and globally efficient resource allocation than traditional, rule-based routing systems (’420 Patent, col. 22:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, incorporating by reference an exhibit identifying "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of a plurality of second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with at least one of the second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple "first-in, first-out" queues or static team assignments, which fail to adapt to changing call volumes and types (’748 Patent, col. 1:26-2:62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a routing system that models both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) based on their "predicted characteristics," each of which has an associated "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility," which accounts for factors like agent cost and expected outcome (’748 Patent, col. 23:57–24:14). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates a decision-making flowchart that balances short-term efficiency with long-term goals like agent training (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By quantifying various routing factors into a common "economic utility," the invention allows a system to make sophisticated, holistic routing decisions that can balance competing business objectives in real time (’748 Patent, col. 24:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, incorporating by reference an exhibit identifying "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979: “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. The invention focuses on performing complex, skill-based routing decisions at a low level within the telephony system itself to improve efficiency and reduce latency compared to systems that rely on external high-level software (’979 Patent, col. 18:8-24).
  • Asserted Claims: "Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

• U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253: “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the '979 Patent, this invention relates to an intelligent call routing system. It describes optimizing the matching of a communication (e.g., a call) with a handler (e.g., an agent) by predicting issues to be handled, accessing agent profiles, and selecting an optimal handler based on a cost-optimization performed within a common system (’253 Patent, col. 33:43-52).
  • Asserted Claims: "Exemplary '253 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶38).

• U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086: “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also discloses a method for matching entities using an auction-based framework. The system defines parameters for a first entity (e.g., a task) and multiple second entities (e.g., resources) and performs an automated optimization that considers the economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of making a resource unavailable for other tasks (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context, as the exhibits containing this information are not attached to the publicly filed document.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) that allegedly compare the asserted patent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory is conclusory, stating only that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" in the patents-in-suit.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the patents' focus on telecommunications, call centers, and auction mechanisms, and the defendant's name ("Carestream Dental LLC"), the infringement analysis may raise fundamental questions of technological and definitional scope.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether terms rooted in telecommunications and auctions can be construed to cover the features of the accused products. For example, does the term "call" as used in the patents, which describe routing telephone calls, read on the functionality of the accused products? Similarly, what functionality in the accused products performs the "automated optimization" or "auction" required by several claims?
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the specific economic calculations required by the claims, such as determining an "economic surplus" or "maximizing an aggregate utility." The complaint provides no facts to suggest how the accused products perform these claimed functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the core optimization step of claim 1. Its definition will be critical to determining whether the accused products perform the claimed optimization, as the complaint provides no detail on how this function is allegedly met. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning appears tied to the specific economic models described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a formal definition, which could support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any calculation of net benefit or value. The patent also discusses a "cost-benefit outcome" more generally (’420 Patent, col. 22:1-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is consistently used in the context of an auction-based system for matching callers and call-center agents. This context could support a narrower construction limited to the specific economic models disclosed for call routing, which consider factors like agent cost, training utility, and anticipated call outcomes (’420 Patent, col. 23:26–24:50).

’748 Patent

• The Term: "economic utility"
• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires representing both communication "sources" and "targets" as having an "economic utility," which is then used to maximize an "aggregate utility." The definition of this term will determine what types of characteristics and calculations fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "economic utility" is a broad concept for normalizing disparate factors into a common metric for analysis, stating that factors like customer satisfaction "must be converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization" (’748 Patent, col. 24:36-40). This may support a construction covering any system that quantifies and compares different performance variables.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently frames "economic utility" in the context of call centers. Examples include simple economic parameters like "sales volume, profit, or the like" and more complex factors like agent costs, training value, and anticipated call outcomes (’748 Patent, col. 23:57–24:14). This could support a narrower construction tied to the specific inputs and outputs of a telecommunications routing system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It claims Defendant distributed "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶45). The complaint also incorporates by reference exhibits that allegedly detail this inducement (Compl. ¶24, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant gained actual knowledge of the ’748 and ’086 Patents upon service of the complaint and the attached (but not provided) claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). It alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continued its infringing activities, which forms the basis for willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms such as "call," "auction," and "economic surplus," which are described in the patents' specifications in the context of telecommunications and call-center management, be construed to read on the features and functions of Defendant's products, which appear to operate in the dental technology field?
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: what factual basis does Plaintiff have for its conclusory allegations that the accused products perform the specific, multi-step optimization methods recited in the claims, including complex economic calculations, particularly as the complaint provides no technical details of the accused products' operation?
• A third question will be one of claim construction: how will the court define foundational terms like "economic utility" and "automated optimization"? The viability of the infringement claims will likely depend on whether these terms are given a broad, abstract meaning or are narrowed to the specific call-center embodiments described in the patents.