Patent Armory Inc v. Ge Healthcare Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01493, N.D. Ill., 02/12/2025
• 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 and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a communications network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the field of computer-telephony integration, specifically systems designed to optimize the routing of communications in environments such as call centers by dynamically matching callers to agents based on various criteria.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings. However, an analysis of the patents-in-suit reveals a long and interconnected prosecution history, with U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 being a continuation of a chain of applications leading back to U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 (also asserted in this case) and ultimately claiming priority to a provisional application filed in 2003. This shared lineage suggests the patents may have similar specifications and claim scope interpretations.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiencies of traditional call centers that use simple first-come-first-served queuing, which fails to account for agent skills or call complexity. This can lead to suboptimal outcomes, such as routing a caller to an under-skilled or over-skilled agent, thereby reducing transactional throughput (ʼ420 Patent, col. 4:35-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by treating the matching process as a type of auction. The system defines data profiles for both entities and performs an "automated optimization" to maximize an "economic surplus" while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:29-64). This allows for dynamic, economically-driven routing decisions rather than static, rule-based ones.
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for call centers to move beyond simple queuing paradigms toward a more dynamic, market-based model for allocating communication resources, potentially improving overall operational efficiency and customer satisfaction (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing their respective characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with one of the second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of that second entity for matching with 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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the limitations of conventional call center routing, where decisions are often based on simple, predetermined rules that do not adapt to the specific context of a call or the real-time state of the call center (’748 Patent, col. 2:9-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that models both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) using data structures that represent their predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing path by "maximizing an aggregate utility" across all available sources and targets, considering factors like agent skill, training value, and business goals (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:29-41).
• Technical Importance: This system enables a more holistic and intelligent approach to communication routing by optimizing for global utility rather than just making isolated, sequential decisions, thereby allowing for the incorporation of long-term business objectives into real-time routing logic (’748 Patent, col. 27:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Representing, in a data structure, a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing, in the data structure, a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their respective predicted characteristics.
• 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 addresses the problem of inefficient call routing. It discloses a telephony control system comprising an input for receiving a communication's classification, a database of skill weights, a database of agent skill scores, and a processor that computes an optimal agent selection to control the call's routing.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed intelligent call routing technology (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that handles communications by storing characteristics of potential targets and performing a combinatorial optimization. The optimization determines the best match for a communication based on a cost-benefit analysis, and the system then controls routing based on that determination.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed intelligent call routing technology (Compl. ¶36).

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 data vectors for each. It then performs an automated, auction-based optimization considering the economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of making an entity unavailable for other matches.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed auction-based matching technology (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that are not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionalities of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products made, used, or sold by Defendant GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. practice the technologies claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 36, 42). Given the patents' subject matter and the Defendant's industry, the accused instrumentalities may be systems for managing patient or customer communications in a healthcare or clinical support context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint repeatedly incorporates by reference infringement claim charts (Exhibits 6-10) that were not included with the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27, 33, 39, 48). Therefore, the specific factual basis for the infringement allegations is not detailed in the complaint itself. The narrative allegations are high-level and conclusory, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26-27).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may be whether the term "auction," as used in the ’420 and ’086 patents, can be construed to cover the routing logic of the accused products. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused systems perform a competitive matching process based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," or whether they use a different, non-auction-based methodology.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused products actually perform the multifactorial, utility-maximizing optimizations required by the claims of the ’420 and ’748 patents. The infringement case will depend on whether the accused systems' operations technically align with the specific methods of defining data vectors and calculating aggregate utility as claimed, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" (from ’420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the inventive concept of the ’420 and ’086 patents. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Defendant's routing algorithms, which might be based on performance metrics or service levels, can be characterized as calculating an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific, economic-based calculation rather than a general-purpose routing rule.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a general "cost-utility function" for call center operations, which could be argued to encompass a variety of algorithmic approaches beyond a strict financial auction (’420 Patent, col. 23:42-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of economic factors, such as agent salary, training costs, and anticipated transaction value, suggesting that "economic surplus" requires the consideration of tangible, monetized or quasi-monetized variables rather than abstract routing priorities (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-20).

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from ’748 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the objective of the claimed routing method. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system performs a holistic optimization that considers the combined "utility" of all potential matches, or if it merely applies a series of simple, sequential rules (e.g., "route to the first available agent with skill X").

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the target of a communication can be defined by an algorithm rather than a predetermined address, suggesting flexibility in what constitutes "utility" (’748 Patent, col. 18:15-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific multi-part formula for calculating outcomes, which includes terms for agent value, transaction value, and opportunity cost. This suggests "maximizing an aggregate utility" requires a specific, multi-component calculation across a set of potential pairings, not just optimizing a single parameter (’748 Patent, col. 24:51-64).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 patents. The allegations are based on the defendant allegedly 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).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges "actual knowledge" of the ’748 and ’086 patents from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). This pleading strategy may be intended to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement and a potential request for enhanced damages. The prayer for relief also requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is the statutory basis for awarding attorney fees in such cases (Compl. ¶ N.i).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claims’ requirements for an "auction" and the calculation of "economic surplus" be construed to cover the algorithmic routing and resource allocation functions of Defendant's healthcare technology products, or is there a fundamental categorical mismatch between the claimed invention and the accused systems?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: as the case proceeds beyond the initial pleadings, what technical evidence will emerge to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the specific, multi-part "multifactorial optimization" and "aggregate utility" maximization required by the patent claims, as opposed to employing more conventional, rule-based logic for routing communications?