Patent Armory Inc v. Alight Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Alight Solutions LLC (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08622, N.D. Ill., 09/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for optimizing telecommunications, particularly in call centers, by using algorithms to match callers with agents based on various economic and non-economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. Several of the asserted patents claim priority back to a provisional application filed in 2003, suggesting a long history of prosecution for the underlying technology.

Case Timeline

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers that use simple routing logic, such as first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent, which fails to account for the specific skills of agents or the nuanced needs of callers (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-4:34). This can lead to mismatches, such as routing a customer to an "under-skilled agent" or an "over-skilled agent," reducing transactional throughput and efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-5:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a caller (a "first entity") with an agent (a "second entity") as an economic optimization problem, akin to an auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system defines parameters for both the caller and available agents and performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the direct value of a good match (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for a potentially more valuable future match (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:1-21).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, multifactorial optimization model intended to improve global call center efficiency over time.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities, representing characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entities for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

---

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’748 Patent addresses similar problems as the ’420 Patent, focusing on the limitations of traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems in call centers (’748 Patent, col. 1:44-54). It notes that such systems often handle communications in a simple queue, which is inefficient when agents have varying skills and callers have diverse needs (’748 Patent, col. 2:45-3:15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that routes communications by maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). It does this by representing both communication sources (e.g., callers) and communication targets (e.g., agents) with "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing between them to maximize the overall utility, considering the characteristics of both the source and the destination (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:1-24:48).
• Technical Importance: This patent frames the routing problem as one of maximizing a global utility function, allowing for more sophisticated and economically-driven matching than prior art systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A communications memory storing predicted characteristics and economic utility for a plurality of communications sources and targets.
  • A communications processor configured to determine an optimal routing between sources and targets.
  • The determination is made by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.
  • A communications router for establishing linkages based on the processor's determination.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that intelligently routes calls based on a "cost-utility function." The system aims to optimize call center operations by considering factors beyond simple queuing, including agent skills and training opportunities, to make a routing decision that is optimal for the long-term operation of the call center (’979 Patent, col. 1:12-2:45, Fig. 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

---

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the ’979 Patent and similarly discloses a system for intelligent call routing. It focuses on a combinatorial optimization of matching communications with available targets, where the system determines an optimal pairing based on a cost-benefit analysis and a predicted availability of the targets (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

---

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Method and system for matching entities in an auction

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining their characteristics with "multivalued scalar data" and performing an "automated optimization." The optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one entity unavailable for other potential matches, framing the matching process as an auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42). Claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific names, model numbers, or technical descriptions of the accused products or services. It makes the conclusory allegation that these products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and states that infringement details are provided in claim charts attached as exhibits (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). These exhibits are incorporated by reference but are not attached to the publicly filed complaint. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of all five patents-in-suit. For each patent, the complaint incorporates by reference external exhibits containing claim charts (Exhibits 6-10) but does not provide any narrative description of the alleged infringement within the body of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27, ¶32-33, ¶38-39, ¶47-48). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, the infringement allegations cannot be presented in a claim chart format. The infringement theory for each patent is limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's reliance on unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" raises the foundational question of which specific products or services are at issue. A central point of contention will be the evidence Plaintiff presents to map the specific functionalities of Defendant's products to the limitations of the asserted claims.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether Defendant's systems perform the specific "automated optimization" functions required by the claims. For example, regarding the ’420 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the accused system calculates an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost" as those terms are understood in the patent, or if it uses a different, more generalized routing logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420

The Term

• "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"

Context and Importance

• This phrase from independent claim 1 forms the core of the inventive concept. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim covers any system that performs multi-factor routing or is limited to systems that explicitly calculate the specific economic metrics described in the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concepts in general terms, stating that the goal is to "optimally schedule agents for greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable" (’420 Patent, col. 4:8-10), which may support construing the term to cover a variety of optimization techniques.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for calculating utility and cost functions, such as "An=Max({[Acn1∑(rs1ans1)+Acn2]+Bcn}+Ccn)+Dcn" (’420 Patent, col. 24:52-54). A defendant may argue this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" to these specific calculations.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748

The Term

• "maximizing an aggregate utility"

Context and Importance

• This limitation from independent claim 1 is central to defining the scope of the claimed routing system. The dispute may turn on whether "aggregate utility" requires a global optimization across all pending communications, as suggested by the patent, or if it can read on systems that perform sequential, localized optimizations.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring to maximizing an "aggregate utility" without specifying the precise mathematical method. This could support a construction covering any system that considers multiple factors to improve overall system performance.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing pairings for multiple matters in a queue simultaneously, stating that instead of selecting an optimal agent for one matter, "the system selects an optimal pairing of respective multiple agents with multiple matters" (’748 Patent, col. 24:62-65). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a combinatorial analysis of all possible pairings in the queue.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It asserts that Defendant provides "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 incorporates by reference Exhibits 7 and 10 as containing evidence of these materials (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on post-suit knowledge for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The sole basis alleged for "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" is "The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited" (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency and Evidence: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint's skeletal allegations, which identify neither the accused products nor the mechanism of infringement beyond incorporating unattached exhibits, satisfy federal pleading standards. Consequently, a primary evidentiary question will be what specific product functionalities Plaintiff can map to the complex, multi-step methods recited in the asserted claims.
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of abstract, algorithm-focused claim terms. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," which are described with specific mathematical embodiments in the patents, be construed broadly enough to cover the potentially different optimization and routing logic used in Defendant’s commercial systems?
3. Technical Operation: A key factual question will be one of functional equivalence: do the accused systems perform the specific type of "automated optimization" or "utility maximization" required by the claims? The dispute may focus on whether Defendant's products conduct a global, combinatorial analysis of potential pairings as described in the patents, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation (e.g., using simpler, sequential, or heuristic-based routing).