DCT

1:24-cv-08170

Patent Armory Inc v. INB NA

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08170, 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 asserted patents describe systems and methods for optimizing the management of communications in environments like call centers, moving beyond simple queuing to complex, real-time matching of callers to agents based on skills and economic factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253
2003-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,237,420, 7,023,979, and 9,456,086
2006-04-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issues
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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued March 19, 2019 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers that use simple, static rules for routing calls, such as first-come-first-served or basic skill matching. These approaches can lead to sub-optimal assignments, such as routing a call to an over-qualified or under-qualified agent, which reduces transactional throughput (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34; col. 4:35-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that treats the matching of a first entity (e.g., a caller) to a second entity (e.g., an agent) as a dynamic, real-time auction. The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only skills but also an "economic surplus" of the match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract). This allows for more sophisticated routing decisions, such as considering long-term call center operational goals over short-term metrics, as depicted in the flowchart of Figure 1 (’420 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 22:4-14).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static call distribution logic to a dynamic, economic optimization model for allocating real-time communication resources, intended to improve efficiency in large-scale customer contact centers (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" of the ’420 Patent without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15).
  • Independent claim 1 of the ’420 Patent recites a method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity, comprising the elements of:
    • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and characteristic parameters for the second entities; and
    • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same call center inefficiencies described in the ’420 Patent, noting that externalizing complex routing logic from the core telephony switch can introduce performance-impairing latencies (’748 Patent, col. 2:13-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system architecture for implementing intelligent routing on a "consolidated platform" (’748 Patent, col. 33:23-27). This system includes a communications processor that executes an "optimizing algorithm" to compare communication characteristics with target characteristics, resolving the target in real-time to establish a communications channel (’748 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). By integrating the intelligent control algorithm with the low-level communications management, the system aims to reduce latency and transactional load on external management systems (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-61; col. 25:50-57).
  • Technical Importance: The patent claims a specific system architecture designed to overcome the performance limitations of prior art systems where intelligent routing logic was physically and logically separate from the low-level call switching hardware (’748 Patent, col. 19:1-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" of the ’748 Patent without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶21).
  • Independent claim 1 of the ’748 Patent recites a communications control system, comprising the elements of:
    • a communications processor for establishing and controlling communications channels;
    • an optimizing algorithm, executed by the processor, which compares characteristics of a communication with characteristics of a plurality of available targets; and
    • wherein the processor determines an optimum target and establishes a channel, with the selecting and establishing steps being performed on a consolidated platform.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a progenitor to the more recent patents-in-suit, describes a foundational system for intelligent call routing. It discloses a system comprising a processor that receives a "communications classification" and uses databases of "skill weights" and "agent skill scores" to compute an "optimum agent selection," thereby directly controlling the routing of the communication (’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products but makes its specific allegations entirely by reference to an un-provided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for intelligent call routing based on a "combinatorial optimization" of available targets. It discloses determining an optimum target for a communication based on its classification, the characteristics of at least three potential targets, and then routing the call accordingly, with the determination and routing steps performed within a common operating environment (’253 Patent, Abstract; Claim 10).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products but makes its specific allegations entirely by reference to an un-provided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the ’420 Patent, introduces the concept of matching entities via an auction framework that considers economic factors. It describes performing an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for an alternative match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products but makes its specific allegations entirely by reference to an un-provided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in external exhibits which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes its infringement allegations for all five patents-in-suit entirely by reference to claim charts in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the core claim element describing the matching process. The dispute may turn on whether the defendant’s system performs a true multi-factorial "optimization" as described in the patent, or a simpler, rules-based sorting or matching that does not rise to the level of optimization.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning in the context of computer science (Compl. ¶15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed mathematical formula for an exemplary optimization, which considers agent cost, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost, suggesting that a specific type of complex, economic calculation may be required (’420 Patent, col. 24:50-58).

  • The Term: "economic surplus" (from ’420 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's auction-based matching concept. Infringement may depend on whether the defendant's system calculates a value that meets the definition of an "economic surplus," a specific term of art in economics.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition for the term, which may allow for a broader construction that covers any calculation of net value or benefit (Compl. ¶15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links the concept to a combination of factors including "sales volume, profit, or the like," as well as non-economic goals like "customer satisfaction" that must be "converted and normalized into economic terms" prior to use, suggesting a specific, multi-faceted calculation is required (’420 Patent, col. 24:30-43).

  • The Term: "consolidated platform" (from ’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the required system architecture. A potential point of contention is whether the defendant's system, which may use distributed servers for different functions (e.g., telephony switching vs. business logic), qualifies as a "consolidated platform."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify a single piece of hardware, which could support a view that logical consolidation of functions on a server system is sufficient (Compl. ¶21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with prior art where "externalizing essential functions imposes potential latencies" (’748 Patent, col. 2:20-24). This suggests the "consolidated platform" requires a tight integration of the high-level optimization algorithm with the low-level communications management to overcome such latencies, potentially within the same operating system instance (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-61).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents, with details purportedly provided in un-filed exhibits (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-provided) claim charts, which may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-suit infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).

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

  • A threshold procedural issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that makes its core factual allegations for infringement and product identification entirely by reference to un-filed external exhibits satisfy the plausibility pleading standards required by federal court?
  • A central technical issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in economic theory, such as "automated optimization" and "economic surplus," be construed to cover the potentially simpler, rules-based logic that may be used in the accused commercial call-routing systems?
  • A key architectural question will be one of structural equivalence: does the defendant's system, which may use multiple servers for different tasks, meet the "consolidated platform" limitation of the ’748 Patent, which the specification suggests is an integrated system designed to overcome the latencies of distributed architectures?