DCT

1:24-cv-02921

Patent Armory Inc v. United Airlines Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02921, N.D. Ill., 04/11/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer communication systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced systems for managing large-scale communications, such as in call centers, by using complex optimizations and economic models to route incoming communications to the most appropriate agent or resource.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation or administrative proceedings concerning the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, also asserted in this case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,979; 7,269,253; 9,456,086; and 10,237,420
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2006-04-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issued
2024-04-11 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”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, titled “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued on March 19, 2019 (’420 Patent).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management strategies, such as first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent routing, which fail to account for the varying skills of agents (’420 Patent, col. 2:41-51). This can lead to mismatches where agents are either under-skilled for a complex query or over-skilled for a simple one, reducing overall throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-63).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching an incoming communication (a "first entity") with an optimal agent (a "second entity") by performing a multifactorial optimization (’420 Patent, col. 1:50-57). This optimization is framed as an auction that considers not only the correspondence between the call's requirements and the agents' skills but also economic factors like the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a skilled agent unavailable for other potential calls (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 8).
    • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, queue-based routing to a dynamic, economically-driven model for allocating communication resources in real-time (’420 Patent, col. 18:5-24).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶17; Exhibit 6). The first independent method claim, Claim 1, includes the following primary elements:
    • Receiving call classification information for each of a plurality of calls.
    • Representing a plurality of agent characteristics for each of a plurality of agents.
    • Determining an optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations of the agents with the calls.
    • The determination must be dependent on a multifactorial optimization of the weighted correspondence between call characteristics and agent characteristics.
    • Controlling a concurrent call routing of the calls based on the determination.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, titled “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” issued on November 26, 2019 (’748 Patent).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem space as the ’420 Patent: the limitations and inefficiencies of conventional, non-adaptive call center routing systems that do not intelligently match callers to agents with specific skills (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-35, col. 4:8-21).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing by maximizing an "aggregate utility." It does this by representing the predicted characteristics of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) in terms of "economic utility" and then finding the pairing that yields the highest value (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system explicitly values factors such as agent training, allowing it to balance short-term efficiency with long-term operational improvement (’748 Patent, col. 23:29-41; Fig. 2).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for routing decisions based on a holistic, utility-based economic model rather than on simple, predefined rules, enabling more sophisticated resource management in a communications network (’748 Patent, col. 18:5-24).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶26; Exhibit 7). The first independent claim, Claim 1, is a system claim requiring:
    • A communications memory storing a table of agent skill profile vectors.
    • An input to receive a call classification vector.
    • A processor configured to determine an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence between the call classification vector and the table of agent skill profile vectors.
    • The processor is further configured to control call routing based on the determination.

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).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficient call routing by describing a system that receives a communication classification, accesses a database of agent skill scores, and uses a processor to compute an optimum agent selection based on the classification and skills (’979 Patent, Abstract). The optimization may take into account a database of skill weights to determine the relative importance of different skills for a given communication (’979 Patent, col. 32:50-61).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references unprovided charts; independent claims are 1 and 18 (Compl. ¶32; Exhibit 8).
  • Accused Features: The complaint generically alleges infringement by "Defendant products identified in the charts" (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued September 11, 2007 (’253 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an intelligent call routing system that optimizes a "cost-utility function" for both short-term and long-term call center operations (’253 Patent, col. 23:42-50; Fig. 1). The system can distinguish between routing for immediate efficiency (e.g., when the call center is near capacity) and routing that incorporates long-term goals, such as providing training opportunities to less-skilled agents (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references unprovided charts; independent claims are 1 and 21 (Compl. ¶38; Exhibit 9).
  • Accused Features: The complaint generically alleges infringement by "Defendant products identified in the charts" (Compl. ¶36).

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).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the ’420 patent, describes a method for matching a "first entity" with a "second entity" through an automated optimization process (’086 Patent, Abstract). The optimization accounts for the economic surplus of a given match and the opportunity cost of making a particular second entity unavailable for other potential matches, framing the selection process as an auction (’086 Patent, col. 1:50-67).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references unprovided charts; independent claims are 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶47; Exhibit 10).
  • Accused Features: The complaint generically alleges infringement by "Defendant products identified in the charts" (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, method, or service by name. It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide any factual allegations describing the technical functionality or operation of any United Airlines system. It makes only conclusory assertions that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). No allegations regarding any product's commercial importance or market position are made.
  • Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a narrative theory of infringement in its main body for any of the asserted patents. Instead, it states that infringement is detailed in claim charts contained in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which are incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48). As these exhibits were not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the patents and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions for the court:
    • Scope Questions: Do the terms "auction," "economic surplus," and "multifactorial optimization," as used in the patents, read on the routing logic actually employed by Defendant’s customer communication systems? A central dispute may be whether Defendant's systems perform the specific economic and utility-based calculations required by the claims, or if they employ a more conventional, non-infringing, rules-based routing logic.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's systems perform the claimed "concurrent" optimization and routing for a plurality of calls, as required by Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent, as opposed to processing calls sequentially? The complaint’s lack of factual detail suggests that evidence of the internal operation of Defendant's systems will be a primary focus of discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "multifactorial optimization" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the ’420 Patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend on whether the processes used in the accused systems meet the definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from simpler, prior art routing methods.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal in broad terms, such as balancing "competing goals" and making "efficient use of call center resources" (’420 Patent, col. 2:29-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the optimization in specific economic terms, such as an "auction" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-67). These specific embodiments may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such economic models.

  • The Term: "optimum agent selection" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the function performed by the claimed processor. Infringement will turn on whether the accused systems perform a selection process that can be characterized as "optimum" in the context of the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the goal broadly as maximizing an "aggregate utility" with respect to predicted characteristics (’748 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of optimizing a "cost-utility function" that incorporates specific, enumerated factors like the "expected incremental training utility" and "expected incremental cost of trainer" (’748 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 24:40-67). This may support a narrower construction tied to these detailed functional elements.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶25, ¶46). The allegations are based on Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful infringement." However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). These allegations appear to form a basis for post-suit enhancement of damages rather than pre-suit willfulness.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of any specific factual allegations concerning the accused systems, can the Plaintiff develop sufficient evidence in discovery to demonstrate that Defendant's real-world communication routing systems perform the specific, complex "multifactorial optimization" or "aggregate utility" maximization functions required by the asserted claims?
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: will claim terms such as "auction" and "optimum agent selection" be construed broadly to cover a wide range of sophisticated, multi-variable routing systems, or will they be narrowed to the specific economic models and cost-utility functions detailed in the patent specifications?