DCT

1:24-cv-08166

Patent Armory Inc v. Insperex LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08166, N.D. Ill., 09/06/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves advanced methods for managing communications in systems like call centers, moving beyond simple routing rules to complex, real-time optimizations based on economic principles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents form a family with a priority claim dating back to 2003.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for '420, '979, and '086 Patents
2006-03-23 Priority Date for '253 Patent
2006-04-03 Priority Date for '748 Patent
2006-04-04 '979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11 '253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 '086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19 '420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 '748 Patent Issued
2024-09-06 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 describes the technical challenge of efficiently managing call centers, where traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems use simplistic, inefficient rules like first-come-first-served or basic skill-based routing (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 2:26-4:67). These legacy approaches can lead to mismatches, such as routing calls to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents, reducing transactional throughput and overall efficiency ('420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as an optimization problem. It defines parameters for both entities using "multivalued scalar data" and then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the direct match quality but also the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for future, potentially more valuable, calls ('420 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:31-48). This method aims to maximize the overall economic efficiency of the system in real time.
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economically-driven model for resource allocation in a communications network.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least one exemplary method claim (Compl. ¶15). Assuming Claim 1 is representative:
  • Independent Claim 1: A method for matching entities, which requires:
    • Defining multivalued scalar data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for a plurality of second entities.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an "economic surplus" of a potential match.
    • The optimization also considers an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15).

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 of the related patents addresses the inefficiency of conventional call centers that rely on static routing rules and fail to perform global, real-time optimizations (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, col. 2:50-4:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility." It does this by representing both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics, each associated with an "economic utility" (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, Abstract). The system then processes these characteristics to find the linkages that provide the maximum overall utility for the system.
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for intelligent, utility-maximizing routing decisions within a communications network, allowing for more sophisticated resource management than traditional systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least one exemplary claim (Compl. ¶21). Assuming Claim 1 is representative:
  • Independent Claim 1: A communications routing system comprising:
    • A memory storing representations of predicted characteristics for a plurality of communications sources and targets, with each having an "economic utility."
    • A processor configured to determine an optimal routing between the sources and targets.
    • This determination is made by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the predicted characteristics of the source-destination linkages.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" of the '748 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

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, an early member of the asserted patent family, discloses a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It describes a system with an input for receiving a communication classification, a database of skill weights, a database of agent skill scores, and a processor for computing an optimum agent selection based on this information (Compl. ¶11; '979 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least the exemplary method claims (Compl. ¶30).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also directed to intelligent call routing in a telephony control system. It describes a method where communications are received, classification information is associated with them, and an optimum target is determined based on a combinatorial optimization (Compl. ¶12; '253 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least the exemplary method claims (Compl. ¶36).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe by practicing the claimed methods (Compl. ¶36).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for matching a first entity with a second entity by defining targeting and characteristic parameters for each. The system then performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making that match, concepts also central to the '420 Patent (Compl. ¶13; '086 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more exemplary claims (Compl. ¶42).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. Instead, it refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that these products practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and states that infringement details are provided in claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). These exhibits were not attached to the complaint as filed in the public record.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or sufficient narrative detail to construct a summary of the infringement allegations. Each count of infringement states that charts comparing the exemplary claims to the accused products are included in exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), but these exhibits are not available in the provided record (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • '420 Patent: A central question for the court will be the degree to which the accused products perform an "automated optimization" as required by the claims. The analysis may hinge on whether the accused functionality considers abstract factors like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," or whether it performs a more conventional form of skill-based or priority-based routing.
    • '748 Patent: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused system calculates or considers an "economic utility" for both communication sources and targets. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the system works to "maximize an aggregate utility" for the system as a whole, rather than simply finding the best available match for an individual communication.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "economic surplus" (from the '420 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the optimization step of Claim 1 of the '420 Patent. Its construction will be critical for determining infringement, as it defines the nature of the value the patented system seeks to maximize. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than a simple technical match, implicating a calculation of value or benefit.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit, limiting definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any metric of value, efficiency, or benefit beyond direct monetary gain.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title and abstract reference an "auction" context ('420 Patent, Title; Abstract). This could support a narrower construction limiting "economic surplus" to a formally calculated monetary value, consistent with concepts in economic or game theory.

  • The Term: "opportunity cost" (from the '420 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation requires the claimed optimization to consider not only the value of making a specific match but also the value lost by making a resource unavailable for other potential matches. This suggests a forward-looking or globally aware optimization process. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system performs such a sophisticated calculation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term simply requires any consideration of future resource availability, such as noting that a specialized agent is now busy and unavailable for the next call.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The technical context of "multifactorial optimization" ('420 Patent, Fig. 4) may support an argument that the term requires a specific, calculated assessment of the value of foregone alternatives, rather than a simple status update of resource availability.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement of the '748 and '086 Patents. 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 contain a separate count for 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). This allegation may serve as a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the abstract economic terms central to the asserted claims—such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "economic utility"—be construed to read on the specific software functions of the accused products? The outcome of claim construction for these terms may be dispositive.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, the case will likely turn on whether discovery produces evidence that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-step multifactorial optimizations required by the claims, or whether they operate using more conventional routing logic that falls outside the asserted claim scope.