Patent Armory Inc v. Southcoast Health System Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Southcoast Health System, Inc. (Massachusetts)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10397, D. Mass., 02/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products and systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, by using multifactorial analysis of caller needs and agent skills to route communications intelligently.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents claim priority back to provisional applications filed as early as 2002 and 2003, indicating a long history of development for the underlying technology. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative challenges involving these patents.

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 (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use static agent groupings or simple routing logic, which can lead to mismatches between caller needs and agent skills, reducing transactional throughput (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 4:14-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated, multifactorial optimization. This optimization considers not only the best skill match but also an "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to a call, which could make that agent unavailable for a different, potentially more valuable, future call (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple, sequential call routing to a more holistic, predictive model that aims to maximize the overall economic utility of the call center's operations over time (’420 Patent, col. 27:9-24).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
  • 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 for 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 an alternate match.
  • The complaint does not specify whether dependent claims are asserted but reserves the right to identify additional 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: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, concerning the inefficient handling of electronic customer contact in call centers (US 10,491,748 B1, col. 2:24-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that routes communications by representing both the sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics, each having an "economic utility." The system then determines the optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" for all linkages, moving beyond a one-to-one optimization to a global optimization of the entire system state (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-13).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for a more dynamic and economically-driven approach to communications routing, aiming to improve system-wide efficiency rather than just the outcome of a single transaction (’748 Patent, col. 24:42-50).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core system.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A communications routing system with a processor and memory.
    • Storing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
    • Storing a plurality of predicted characteristics 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 the predicted characteristics.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

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 communications management system for a call center. The system receives a communication, determines a classification for it, accesses a database of agent skills, and computes an optimal agent selection based on a multifactorial analysis before directly controlling the routing of the communication (US 7,023,979 B1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology but provides no specific details (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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, also discloses a telephony control system. It focuses on receiving a classification for an incoming call, accessing a database of agent characteristics, and using a processor to determine an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence between the call classification and the agent characteristics, thereby controlling the call's routing (US 7,269,253 B1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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, describes a method for matching entities by defining multivalued scalar data for each entity type. It then performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one entity unavailable for a different match, framing the matching process as an auction (US 9,456,086 B1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent but does not specify which features are accused (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name. It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" throughout its allegations (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant, a health system, makes, uses, or sells infringing products but offers no description of what those products are or how they operate (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement details are provided in claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which are incorporated by reference but were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). The narrative infringement theory is conclusory, stating only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17). Because no claim charts or specific factual allegations of infringement are provided, a tabular summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The complaint lacks specific factual allegations describing how any particular product functions in an infringing manner. A key question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence in discovery to substantiate its claims that the accused products perform the complex optimizations required by the patents-in-suit.
  • Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a potential question may arise regarding whether the patents' language, which is heavily rooted in the context of commercial call centers and sales agents, can be construed to cover the specific systems and personnel roles within a healthcare provider like the Defendant. For example, the construction of terms like "agent" or "economic surplus" may be disputed in the context of patient care coordination or hospital resource management.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'420 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The Term: "economic surplus" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed optimization process. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the objective function of an accused system can be characterized as calculating an "economic surplus," which includes both the direct value of a match and the opportunity cost of forgoing other matches.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "economic surplus" is not limited to direct monetary gain, stating that business goals can include "customer satisfaction," which must be "converted and normalized into economic terms" for the optimization (’420 Patent, col. 24:35-41). This may support a broader construction covering non-monetary utility metrics.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and detailed description are heavily focused on commercial call centers handling "sales, service, and billing" (’420 Patent, col. 14:49-54). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to more traditional financial or commercial metrics.

'748 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core optimization goal of the claimed system. Infringement will likely turn on whether the accused system performs a global optimization that "maximizes" a system-wide "aggregate utility," as opposed to optimizing individual transactions sequentially or using a different objective function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "all of these disparate factors are normalized into a common metric, 'cost', which is then subject to numeric analysis" (’748 Patent, col. 24:19-21), suggesting "utility" is a broad concept that can encompass any quantifiable factor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific formula provided, An=Max({[Acn1Σ(rs1ans1)+Acn2]+Bcn}+Ccn)+Dcn), represents a particular type of utility calculation (’748 Patent, col. 24:51-53). A defendant could argue that this specific embodiment narrows the scope of what it means to "maximize an aggregate utility."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations state that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is predicated on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint and its attached (but not publicly available) claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents, which suggests the willfulness claim is directed at post-filing conduct.

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations can survive a motion to dismiss. The complaint fails to identify the accused products or provide any specific facts explaining how they allegedly infringe, instead relying on incorporating non-public exhibits by reference. The case will depend on whether Plaintiff can present sufficient factual content to support a plausible claim for relief.
• Definitional Scope: Assuming the case proceeds, a core issue will be one of claim construction: can terms central to the patented optimizations, such as "economic surplus" and "maximizing an aggregate utility," be construed to read on the specific algorithms and objective functions used in the Defendant's systems, particularly within the non-commercial context of a healthcare provider?