DCT

1:24-cv-08171

Patent Armory Inc v. Help At Home LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08171, N.D. Ill., 09/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching systems, typically used in call centers.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies for optimizing the assignment of incoming communications (like customer calls) to available agents based on various economic and non-economic factors to improve efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings (e.g., IPRs) involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2006-04-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Priority Date
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
2024-09-09 Complaint Filing Date

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: Traditional call centers often use simplistic routing rules (e.g., first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent) that are inefficient when agents have varying skills or when call types have different values, leading to problems like under-skilled or over-skilled agent assignments and static groupings that do not adapt to changing call volumes and types ( Compl. Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, col. 3:1-4:34).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more dynamic system that treats the matching of a caller (a "first entity") to an agent (a "second entity") as an economic auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). It defines parameters for both the caller and the available agents and performs an "automated optimization" to maximize the "economic surplus" of a match, considering not just the best fit but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for a different, potentially more valuable, future call (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:10-21). This optimization is designed to be performed at a low level within the communications management architecture itself, rather than by a separate high-level system (’420 Patent, col. 18:55-62).
    • Technical Importance: The technology aims to move beyond static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, economically optimized system that can adapt in real-time to changing conditions and agent availability, seeking a more globally efficient allocation of resources (’420 Patent, col. 25:10-14).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify any specific claims, instead incorporating them by reference to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17-18). The first independent claim, Claim 1, is representative:
      • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity...
      • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity...
      • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters...
      • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match...
      • 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.

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

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, focusing on the inefficiencies of traditional call centers that handle electronic customer contact without sufficiently accounting for the varying skills of agents and the varying needs of callers (Compl. Ex. 2, ’748 Patent, col. 1:47-2:51).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility." It does this by representing both communications sources (e.g., callers) and communications targets (e.g., agents) with "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility." The system then calculates the optimal pairing to maximize the overall utility across all linkages (’748 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers factors beyond simple skill matching, such as training utility and long-term call center operational goals (’748 Patent, col. 36:28-42).
    • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a more holistic and globally optimized routing strategy by quantifying disparate factors like agent cost, training value, and predicted call outcomes into a common "economic utility" metric that can be algorithmically maximized (’748 Patent, col. 24:20-30).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify any specific claims, instead referring to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 26-27). The first independent claim, Claim 1, is representative:
      • A communications routing system...
      • 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; and
      • 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...

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 Apr. 4, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system to improve call center efficiency by moving beyond simple routing rules. It proposes a system that uses a "multivariate cost function" to select an optimal agent for a call, taking into account factors like agent skills, agent costs, and predicted call outcomes to create a more intelligent and economically efficient match (Compl. Ex. 3, ’979 Patent, col. 23:46-51, col. 24:20-41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which, referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 32-33). The patent contains two independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 17).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not name any specific products or features, instead accusing "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶ 30).

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 Sep. 11, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, describes a communications system where communications are received with associated classification information. Information about available targets is stored, and an optimal target is determined for each communication through a "combinatorial optimization" based on the characteristics of both the communication and the potential targets (Compl. Ex. 4, ’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which, referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38-39). The patent contains one independent claim (Claim 1).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not name any specific products or features, instead accusing "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶ 36).

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 Sep. 27, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, discloses a method for matching entities by defining "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity (e.g., a caller) and "characteristic parameters" for a plurality of second entities (e.g., agents). The system then performs an "automated optimization" that considers both the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for a future match (Compl. Ex. 5, ’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which, referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 47-48). The patent contains one independent claim (Claim 1).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not name any specific products or features, instead accusing "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶ 42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 36, 42). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states that these products are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint provides no description of the relevant features, technical functionality, or market context of any accused instrumentality. All such information is deferred to the unprovided exhibits.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to unprovided exhibits containing claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48). The complaint provides no narrative summary or factual allegations describing how any accused product meets the limitations of the asserted claims. For example, regarding the ’420 Patent, the complaint states only that "As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶ 17). This formulation is repeated for each of the five patents-in-suit.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The complaint's lack of specificity prevents the identification of concrete technical or legal points of contention regarding infringement. A primary procedural issue may be whether the complaint's allegations, which rely entirely on unprovided exhibits, meet the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed invention, as it describes the core computational step that distinguishes the invention from prior art routing methods. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a wide range of analytical or rule-based routing systems fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in broad, functional terms, such as determining "an optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations" based on a "multifactorial optimization" of weighted characteristics (’420 Patent, col. 12:5-16). This language may support a construction covering any algorithm that considers multiple factors to select an agent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the optimization to specific economic concepts like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:42-51). This context could support a narrower construction requiring the optimization to be explicitly economic in nature, potentially excluding systems that optimize based solely on non-economic factors like agent skill scores or idle time.

  • The Term: "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires representing both callers and agents by characteristics, "each having an economic utility," and then maximizing an "aggregate utility." The definition of "economic utility" is critical, as it dictates what types of data and calculations are required to practice the invention.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that "economic utility" is a broad, normalizing concept, stating that disparate factors like customer satisfaction "must be converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization" (’748 Patent, col. 24:37-41). This could support a construction where any system that assigns a numerical value or score to different call outcomes is deemed to be calculating an "economic utility."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides examples of economic utility that are tied to concrete financial metrics like "sales volume, profit, or the like" (’748 Patent, col. 24:33-36). This could support a narrower construction requiring the "utility" to be tied to actual or predicted monetary values, potentially excluding systems based on abstract scores or satisfaction metrics alone.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant distributing "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). The complaint alleges that Defendant possessed the requisite knowledge and intent at least since being served with the complaint and its corresponding claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on "[t]he service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). This alleges post-suit knowledge, which could form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-filing conduct, but does not allege pre-suit knowledge that would typically support a claim for pre-suit willful infringement.

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

  • A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: will the complaint, which fails to identify a single accused product by name and makes all infringement allegations by reference to unprovided exhibits, be found to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, or will it be subject to dismissal for failing to provide adequate notice of the basis for its claims?
  • A key question of claim construction will be the scope of abstract, functional terms that appear central to all five patents. Can concepts like "automated optimization" and "economic utility," which are described in the context of economic and call-center theories, be construed broadly enough to read on general-purpose routing or load-balancing systems, or will they be limited to the specific economic models disclosed?
  • Should the case proceed to discovery, a core evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence can be adduced to show that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-step optimization processes required by the claims—considering factors like "opportunity cost" and "aggregate utility"—as opposed to employing more conventional, rule-based routing logic?