Patent Armory Inc v. Efinancial LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Efinancial, LLC (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08306, N.D. Ill., 09/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent telecommunication routing systems, such as those used in call centers to match callers with agents using economic and performance-based criteria.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to automated call distribution (ACD) systems used in call centers to optimize the routing of communications by performing complex, multifactorial analysis of caller needs and agent skills.
• Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-07	Priority Date: ’979 Patent, ’420 Patent, ’086 Patent
2006-03-23	Priority Date: ’253 Patent
2006-04-04	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979
2007-09-11	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253
2016-09-27	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086
2017-10-30	Priority Date: ’748 Patent
2019-03-19	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420
2019-11-26	Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748
2024-09-12	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: The patent addresses inefficiencies in traditional call center management, where routing systems like first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent fail to optimally match callers with agents possessing the right skills, leading to problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents. (Compl. Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as an auction. It defines characteristics for both the incoming communication (the “first entity”) and the available agents (the “second entities”) as data points and then performs an “automated optimization.” This optimization considers not only the best match but also the “economic surplus” of a potential pairing and the “opportunity cost” of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches, moving beyond simple queuing logic. (Compl. Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a call center to make routing decisions based on complex business objectives, such as maximizing long-term value or providing training opportunities, rather than solely on minimizing immediate wait times. (Compl. Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, col. 23:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least the “exemplary method claims” without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request.
  • Determining a set of available partners, each having at least one respective partner characteristic.
  • Evaluating, with an automated processor, a plurality of pairings based on an evaluator for valuing the pairings.
  • Generating a control signal based on the evaluation.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to “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, this patent addresses the challenge of efficiently routing communications in environments like call centers, where simple, rigid routing rules are suboptimal. (Compl. Ex. 2, ’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics, each having an associated “economic utility.” The system then determines an optimal routing by “maximizing an aggregate utility” across all potential pairings, effectively creating a marketplace for routing decisions. (Compl. Ex. 2, ’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This utility-maximization framework provides a sophisticated, flexible way to manage communication flows based on holistic business goals rather than simple, sequential processing. (Compl. Ex. 2, ’748 Patent, col. 23:42-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts “one or more claims” without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Representing predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but uses general language (Compl. ¶21).

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 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to telephony systems with intelligent call routing capabilities, likely focusing on methods to improve upon standard call distribution by incorporating more sophisticated logic for selecting a destination.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts “one or more claims” and “exemplary method claims” without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the “Exemplary Defendant Products” practice the technology claimed in the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30, 32).

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 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: Like the ’979 Patent, this patent appears directed to telephony control systems that employ intelligent routing, likely representing an iteration or different aspect of the same underlying technology for optimizing call distribution.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts “one or more claims” and “exemplary method claims” without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the “Exemplary Defendant Products” practice the technology claimed in the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36, 38).

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 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent describes a method for matching entities using an auction framework, suggesting a system that models communications routing as a competitive bidding process to determine the optimal pairing.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts “one or more claims” and “Exemplary ’086 Patent Claims” without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the “Exemplary Defendant Products” practice the technology claimed in the ’086 Patent and that Defendant’s product literature induces infringement (Compl. ¶42, 45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers to them generically as the “Exemplary Defendant Products” (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products practice the technology claimed by the Patents-in-Suit but provides no specific details regarding their functionality or operation (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The analysis of the accused instrumentality is dependent on information contained in Exhibits 6-10, which are referenced by the complaint but were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents but does not provide element-by-element infringement contentions within the body of the complaint itself. Instead, it incorporates by reference a series of exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that purportedly contain claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). As these exhibits were not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the specific "automated optimization" required by the asserted claims. For the ’420 and ’086 Patents, this includes determining whether the accused systems calculate an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." For the ’748 Patent, it includes determining whether they calculate and maximize an "aggregate utility."
• Scope Questions: The dispute may raise questions regarding the scope of claim terms rooted in specific contexts. For example, a key issue could be whether the term "auction," as described in the context of call centers in the ’420 and ’086 Patents, can be construed to read on the functionality of the accused products, the nature of which is not detailed in the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining how the invention moves beyond simple skill-matching. Its construction will be critical to determining whether an accused system that performs any kind of value-based optimization infringes, or if it must perform a more specific economic calculation as described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses balancing competing goals and making efficient use of resources in general terms, which may support a broader construction covering various forms of value optimization. (Compl. Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, col. 2:29-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific formulas for a "cost-utility function," including factors for agent cost, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost, which could support a narrower construction tied to these explicit calculations. (Compl. Ex. 1, ’420 Patent, col. 24:50-65).

’748 Patent

• The Term: "aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: The requirement to maximize an "aggregate utility" distinguishes the invention from systems that optimize individual pairings in isolation. The definition of this term will be important for determining whether the accused system must perform a global optimization across all available sources and targets, or if a less comprehensive optimization meets the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification’s general discussion of balancing competing goals for the call center as a whole could support a broad interpretation of "aggregate" to mean any optimization that considers system-wide effects. (Compl. Ex. 2, ’748 Patent, col. 2:29-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that "the general principle is to route the call such that the sum of the utility functions of the calls be maximized while the cost of handling those calls be minimized," suggesting a specific, summative calculation across multiple pending communications. (Compl. Ex. 2, ’748 Patent, col. 36:25-29).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶24, 45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶23, 44). This allegation supports a claim for enhanced damages for post-filing conduct rather than pre-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product functionality, a key question will be what evidence Plaintiff produces to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the complex, multi-factorial optimizations and economic calculations—such as determining an "economic surplus" or maximizing "aggregate utility"—that are required by the asserted claims.
• A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of terms like "auction" and "economic utility." Can these terms, which are described in the patents with specific context and mathematical formulations related to call centers, be construed broadly enough to cover the operational logic of the accused products, which remains undefined in the complaint?