Patent Armory Inc v. Grubhub Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: GrubHub Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-13035, N.D. Ill., 12/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's maintenance of an established place of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s on-demand food delivery platform infringes five patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents concern technologies for optimizing resource allocation in large-scale communication networks by intelligently matching incoming requests (e.g., calls) with available service providers (e.g., agents) based on multi-factorial analysis.
• Key Procedural History: No significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

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 challenge of efficiently managing call centers, which must balance providing high-quality customer service with the costs of staffing agents who possess diverse skills (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Traditional routing methods are often inefficient in matching an incoming request to the optimal agent.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a customer communication) with an optimal "second entity" (e.g., a service agent) from a group of potential candidates. The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers both the direct value of a potential match (the "economic surplus") and the "opportunity cost" of making that specific second entity unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:41-50). This process is guided by data vectors representing the characteristics of both the incoming request and the available agents (’420 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach advances beyond simple first-in-first-out or longest-idle routing by implementing a global optimization that accounts for the state of the entire system, a technique intended to maximize overall efficiency in complex service networks (’420 Patent, col. 5:10-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more "exemplary method claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities;
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity;
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing respective characteristic parameters for each of the second entities; and
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
• The complaint's general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶15).

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 patent addresses inefficiencies in call centers arising from static agent groupings and the misallocation of calls to agents who may be either under-skilled or over-skilled for a particular task (’748 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that routes communications by modeling both the communication "sources" (e.g., customers) and "targets" (e.g., agents) based on their predicted characteristics and an assigned "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility" across all potential pairings. A key feature is the ability to optimize for long-term goals, such as by routing a call to a trainee agent to improve the center's overall skill base over time (’748 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 311-314).
• Technical Importance: The technology introduces a strategic, long-term perspective to routing decisions by incorporating factors like training utility, aiming to enhance the call center's aggregate skill and future performance rather than focusing solely on immediate transactional efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 24:28-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing method;
  • Representing, in memory, predicted characteristics and an economic utility for a plurality of communications sources;
  • Representing, in memory, predicted characteristics and an economic utility for a plurality of communications targets; and
  • Determining, by a processor, an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility.
• The complaint's general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (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.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an early member of the family including the ’748 patent, describes a system for intelligently routing calls in a telephony environment. The technology addresses the problem of matching callers with appropriately skilled agents by using a cost-utility function that considers factors beyond simple call queuing, aiming to optimize call center efficiency (’979 Patent, col. 1:12-20).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses GrubHub's systems that route communications between users (e.g., customers, drivers) and agents (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.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is also part of the family including the ’748 patent and builds on the concept of intelligent call routing. It describes a system where an optimal target for a communication is determined based on a combinatorial optimization of various factors, including caller characteristics and agent skills, to improve upon traditional first-in-first-out routing methods (’253 Patent, col. 1:50-58).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses GrubHub's communication routing systems (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.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an earlier member of the family including the ’420 patent, discloses a method for matching entities using an auction-based framework. The system moves beyond simple matching to perform an optimization that accounts for the economic surplus of a given match as well as the opportunity cost of making a resource unavailable for other potential matches, thereby seeking a globally optimal allocation (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses GrubHub's systems for matching customer orders with available restaurants and delivery drivers (Compl. ¶42, ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify specific products by name (Compl. ¶15). Based on the defendant's identity, the accused instrumentality is the GrubHub platform, which includes its consumer-facing applications, driver applications, and backend server infrastructure for coordinating food ordering and delivery.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused platform. The infringement allegations for the ’420 and ’086 patents suggest the accused functionality involves the platform's system for matching a customer's order with a set of available restaurants and delivery drivers (Compl. ¶15, ¶42). The allegations for the ’748, ’979, and ’253 patents suggest the accused functionality involves the platform's systems for routing communications, such as customer support inquiries or driver communications, to appropriate personnel (Compl. ¶21, ¶30, ¶36). The complaint contains no allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market position.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Therefore, the infringement theories are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

• ’420 Patent and ’086 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the GrubHub platform directly infringes claims directed to auction-based matching (Compl. ¶15, ¶42). The theory suggests that when a customer places an order, the platform treats that order as a "first entity" and the network of available restaurants and drivers as a "plurality of second entities." It is alleged that the platform then performs an "automated optimization" to create a match, which the complaint contends practices the claimed consideration of both the direct value of the match and the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular resource (e.g., a driver) to that order (Compl. ¶17, ¶47).
• ’748 Patent, ’979 Patent, and ’253 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that GrubHub's communication systems directly infringe claims directed to intelligent routing (Compl. ¶21, ¶30, ¶36). This theory posits that when a communication (e.g., a customer support request) enters the system, GrubHub's platform represents the communication "source" and the available "targets" (e.g., support agents) using data profiles. The platform is alleged to then determine an "optimal routing" by executing a process that maximizes an "aggregate utility" for the system as a whole, rather than using a simple first-come, first-served method (Compl. ¶26, ¶32, ¶38).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the automated dispatching of a food order to a delivery driver on a technology platform constitutes an "auction" as that term is understood within the context of the ’420 and ’086 patents. A related question is whether the entities involved (customers, restaurants, drivers) and their associated data correspond to the "multivalued scalar data," "economic utility," and "predicted characteristics" recited in the claims of the asserted patents.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise as to whether the accused GrubHub platform's algorithm performs the specific functions required by the claims, such as distinctly calculating an "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent) or "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent), or whether it achieves a similar logistical outcome through a technically different algorithmic approach.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "auction" (from the ’420 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the ’420 and ’086 patents hinges on whether GrubHub’s process of assigning a delivery order qualifies as an "auction." Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification frequently provides examples rooted in call centers where agents may "bid" for calls, a potentially different context than automated dispatching in a delivery network.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim language describes the process more generally as "matching a first entity with at least one second entity" and performing an "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, cl. 1), which may not require a formal bid-ask process. The specification also describes a process of "optimizing a cost-benefit outcome of a routing" in general terms (’420 Patent, Fig. 4, element 608).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title explicitly uses the term "auction." The specification describes embodiments where "agents bid for a caller" (’420 Patent, col. 21:50-52) and where routing is based on the "results of an auction" (’420 Patent, Fig. 7, element 902), which could suggest a more specific, competitive process is contemplated.

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from the ’748 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required optimization process. The dispute may turn on whether GrubHub's system performs a global optimization across all potential pairings to find a mathematical maximum, or if it employs a simpler heuristic for finding a "good enough" match.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not recite a specific mathematical formula for "utility" or a specific algorithm for "maximizing" it, potentially allowing for any process that systematically seeks to improve a collective outcome.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses detailed multi-part cost function formulas (e.g., ’748 Patent, col. 24:48-67) and describes "combinatorial analysis" (’748 Patent, col. 45:1), which may support a narrower construction requiring a comprehensive, multi-factorial calculation to find a true maximum value.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’086 and ’748 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 an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’086 and ’748 patents, but bases this knowledge on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). These allegations may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but do not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "auction," rooted in patent specifications that describe competitive bidding among call center agents, be construed to cover the automated logistical process of matching a customer's food order with restaurants and drivers on GrubHub's on-demand delivery platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic function: What evidence will show that the accused GrubHub platform performs the specific, multi-part optimizations required by the patent claims—such as calculating a distinct "opportunity cost" or "maximizing an aggregate utility"—as opposed to employing a more general-purpose logistical algorithm that achieves a similar outcome through different technical means?