Patent Armory Inc v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MA)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-30153, D. Mass., 12/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the District of Massachusetts and having committed the alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business systems infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities in a communications system.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of computer-telephony integration, specifically focusing on advanced software for managing large-scale call centers and other communications hubs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents claim priority back to applications filed as early as 2003, indicating a long development history 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 (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the inefficiency of traditional call center routing systems, which often use simple first-in, first-out or longest-idle-agent logic (Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 3:1-13). These methods fail to account for variations in agent skills, leading to mismatches where under-skilled agents receive calls they cannot handle or over-skilled agents are assigned to simple tasks, reducing overall throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:13-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention recasts call routing as an economic "auction" to match a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with an optimal "second entity" (e.g., an agent) from an available pool (’420 Patent, col. 1:1-2:24). The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential calls, aiming to maximize the global efficiency of the call center (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, queue-based call distribution to a dynamic, multi-factorial optimization model that treats agent availability as a resource to be allocated for maximum system-wide utility (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint incorporates by reference an exhibit identifying the asserted claims but does not specify them in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core inventive concept.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Defining multivalued scalar data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for the first entity (e.g., the caller's needs).
  • Defining multivalued scalar data representing "characteristic parameters" for each of a plurality of second entities (e.g., agents' skills).
  • Performing an "automated optimization" with respect to an "economic surplus" of a potential match.
  • The optimization also considers an "opportunity cost" related to the unavailability of a selected second entity for other potential matches.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶14).

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 inefficiencies of conventional call centers that do not intelligently match callers with agents possessing the appropriate skills or characteristics (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-48).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system that assigns communications by calculating an "expected economic value" for each potential pairing of a communication source with an available resource (e.g., an agent) (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 48:1-12). The system calculates a score based on availability and then estimates the economic value to assign the communication to the resource that provides the optimal outcome, which can include factors such as long-term training value in addition to immediate efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 35:28-36:31; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention moves beyond simple skill-matching to a predictive economic model, allowing a routing system to make decisions based on maximizing a calculated utility function that incorporates diverse business objectives (’748 Patent, col. 18:8-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring instead to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶25). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving communications and identifying available resources.
  • Calculating a "score" for each resource based on its availability state.
  • Estimating an "expected economic value" for associating a communication with each resource.
  • Assigning the communication to a resource based on the estimated expected economic value.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing (Issued April 4, 2006)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an early member of the asserted patent family, addresses inefficient call routing by disclosing a system that uses a communications classification, a database of agent skill scores, and another database of skill weights to compute an optimal agent selection. The system directly controls call routing based on this computation (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but refers to "Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" in an incorporated chart (Compl. ¶¶29, 31).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s systems that perform intelligent call routing of infringement (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing (Issued September 11, 2007)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications system where a plurality of communications are received and classified. The system determines an optimal target for each communication from at least three potential targets based on a combinatorial optimization, which is informed by a cost-benefit analysis (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but refers to "Exemplary '253 Patent Claims" in an incorporated chart (Compl. ¶¶35, 37).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s intelligent call routing systems of infringement (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Method and system for matching entities in an auction (Issued September 27, 2016)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the ’420 patent, discloses the core concept of matching a first entity with a second entity by defining inferential targeting parameters and characteristic parameters. It performs an automated optimization based on the economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of making the second entity unavailable for other matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but refers to "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" in an incorporated chart (Compl. ¶¶41, 46).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s systems that match entities through an optimization process of infringement (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products but refers to them collectively as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶14). These products are identified in claim chart exhibits which are incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶16, ¶25, ¶31, ¶37, ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are systems and methods used by the Defendant for routing communications and matching entities, such as customers with company agents (Compl. ¶¶14, 20, 29, 35, 41). The functionality is described in terms of how it allegedly practices the patented technology, including performing optimizations to select optimal targets for communications based on various parameters (Compl. ¶16, ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which are not provided in the filed document. The infringement theory is therefore summarized below in prose.

• ’420 and ’086 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe by practicing a method of matching entities (e.g., customers and agents) in a manner that satisfies the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶14, 41). The infringing functionality is alleged to be the system's use of an optimization process that considers various parameters of the entities to be matched, which the complaint asserts corresponds to the claimed "automated optimization" considering "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (Compl. ¶16, ¶46).
• ’748, ’979, and ’253 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe by practicing an "intelligent call routing" method (Compl. ¶¶20, 29, 35). This is based on the accused systems allegedly classifying communications, evaluating characteristics of available agents, and using that information to compute and execute an optimal routing decision, thereby meeting the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶25, ¶31, ¶37).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be one of scope: do the terms "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," which are rooted in formal economic theory, read on the logic employed by Defendant's communications routing system? The court may need to determine if the accused system's functionality, which could be based on a set of business rules or priorities, rises to the level of the specific "automated optimization" required by the claims of the ’420 and ’086 Patents.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise regarding how the accused products function. For the ’748, ’979, and ’253 Patents, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused systems "estimate an expected economic value" or perform a "combinatorial optimization," as opposed to applying a simpler, sequential skill-matching algorithm? The dispute may focus on whether the technical operation of the accused systems matches the specific computational steps recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase is the central limitation of the auction-related patents. The outcome of the case will likely depend on whether Defendant's routing logic is construed as performing this specific, multi-part economic calculation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than simple skill-based matching; it suggests a global optimization that balances the immediate value of a match against its future cost to the system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's background section broadly discusses various "strategies for call center management" and the problems with simple routing, which could support construing "optimization" to encompass any intelligent routing method that improves upon the prior art (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-3:11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific multi-variable formulas for a "cost-utility function," including terms for anticipated transaction value ("Ccn") and opportunity cost ("Dcn"), suggesting "optimization" requires a formal, quantitative economic analysis (’420 Patent, col. 24:42-50). The patent's title, "matching entities in an auction," also points toward a specific economic framework.

• Term: "estimate an expected economic value" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for the intelligent routing patents, as it requires a predictive calculation rather than a simple comparison of existing states. The dispute may turn on whether the metrics used by the accused system (e.g., agent proficiency scores, historical sales data) qualify as an "estimate" of an "economic value."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the system may be used to implement a variety of communications features and that the goals may include non-monetary outcomes like "customer satisfaction," which could support a broad reading of "economic value" to include any quantifiable measure of utility (’748 Patent, col. 24:36-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention in commercial terms, referencing "business goals," "sales volume, profit, or the like," and normalizing disparate factors into a common metric of "cost" (’748 Patent, col. 24:28-40). This language suggests "economic value" implies a metric that is either monetary or directly translatable into a financial or business-centric outcome.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶45). The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct users on how to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents "at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts" (Compl. ¶¶22, 24, 43, 45). This allegation appears aimed at establishing a basis for post-suit willful infringement. The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents’ use of formal economic terms like "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost" be construed to cover the rule-based logic of a modern corporate communications system, or do these terms require a more rigorous, mathematically defined optimization process than what the accused products perform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what technical evidence can Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific predictive calculations claimed, such as "estimat[ing] an expected economic value," as opposed to merely applying static or historical data to route communications based on agent availability and skill sets? The case will likely turn on the ability to map the patents’ abstract optimization concepts onto the concrete operational steps of the accused systems.