Patent Armory Inc v. Johns Hopkins University

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01548, D. Md., 05/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Maryland because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as routing calls to the most appropriate agent in a call center or matching parties in an auction.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

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 March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in conventional call centers that use simple queuing rules (e.g., first-come-first-served) or basic skill-based routing, which fail to account for complex variables like agent costs, expertise levels, and the opportunity cost of assigning a highly skilled agent to a simple task (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 3:11-34, col. 4:48-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (such as an incoming call) with an optimal "second entity" (such as a call center agent) from a pool of available options. This is achieved by defining parameters for both the incoming request and the available agents, and then performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for a subsequent, potentially more valuable, match (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for a more dynamic and economically efficient allocation of resources in real-time systems by treating the matching process as a micro-auction that maximizes overall utility rather than just following static rules (’420 Patent, col. 21:3-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for a first entity (representing "inferential targeting parameters") and for each of a plurality of second entities (representing "characteristic parameters").
  • Performing an automated optimization regarding a match between the first entity and a second entity.
  • The optimization must account for two factors: (1) an "economic surplus" of the match, and (2) an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the selected 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,” Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that traditional computer telephony integrated (CTI) systems separate high-level intelligent control functions from the low-level communication switching hardware. This architecture can introduce latencies and inefficiencies because the switching system must constantly communicate with an external management system to make intelligent routing decisions (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system where the intelligence is integrated at a lower level. The system uses a processor to determine an optimal routing path between communication sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility." This calculation is based on stored "predicted characteristics" of both the sources (e.g., callers) and the targets (e.g., agents), each of which has an associated "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:8-21).
• Technical Importance: By integrating the intelligent decision-making process directly into the communications control system, the invention aims to reduce latency and transactional load on external systems, allowing for more responsive and efficient real-time communications routing (’748 Patent, col. 25:50-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing system comprising a memory and a processor.
  • The memory stores predicted characteristics and an economic utility for a plurality of communications sources, and predicted characteristics and an economic utility for a plurality of communications targets.
  • The processor determines an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their 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,” Issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficient routing in call centers. It discloses a system that receives a communication classification, accesses a database of agent skill scores, and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" based on the correspondence between the call's needs and the agents' skills, directly controlling the call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶11).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims are asserted (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: A related patent to the ’979 patent, it similarly describes an intelligent call routing system for a telephony control system. The invention determines an optimum agent to handle a communication by analyzing characteristics of the call and comparing them against a database of agent profiles and skills to make a selection that optimizes a cost-utility function (’253 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims are asserted (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Technology Synopsis: An earlier patent in the same family as the ’420 patent, it describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity selected from a plurality of options. The method involves defining targeting parameters for the first entity and characteristic parameters for the second entities and then performing an "automated optimization" with respect to the economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of that entity's unavailability for other matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶13).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims are asserted (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. It alleges that charts, attached as Exhibits 6-10 but not provided with the complaint, identify the accused products and their functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Exhibits 6-10 contain charts comparing the exemplary patent claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory is conclusory, stating that the charts demonstrate that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17). Without access to the referenced charts or a more detailed narrative description, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the final step of independent claim 1 and defines the core function of the invention. The dispute may center on whether the process used by the accused instrumentality qualifies as an "optimization" in the manner claimed, or if it is merely a rule-based selection process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in broad functional terms, such as "a multi-step process" for selecting an agent within a voice channel switching system, which may support a construction not limited to a specific mathematical algorithm (col. 20:56-64).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific mathematical formulae for optimization, such as An=Max([Acn1Σ(rsnan s₁)+Acn2]), which includes cost functions and skill scores. This could support a narrower construction requiring a process that performs a comparable, multi-factorial cost-utility calculation (col. 24:1-65).

For the ’748 Patent

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the goal of the "optimal routing" performed by the claimed processor. The central question will be what constitutes an "aggregate utility" and what actions meet the threshold of "maximizing" it, as opposed to merely improving it.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the goal more generally as resolving a target "inferentially or intelligently, at a relatively low level within the communications management architecture," which could suggest a functional, rather than strictly mathematical, definition of maximization (col. 18:25-30).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that the system balances competing goals, such as customer satisfaction and operational cost, and that "the general principle is to route the call such that the sum of the utility functions of the calls be maximized while the cost of handling those calls be minimized." This language may support a construction that requires a process that calculates and attempts to maximize a combined value derived from multiple, potentially competing, utility functions (col. 36:25-29).

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). Knowledge is alleged to arise from at least the service of the complaint and the attached (but not provided) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could form the basis for a later claim for enhanced damages (Compl. p. 11, ¶N.i).

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

The complaint, as filed, presents a procedural shell rather than a detailed technical case. This raises immediate questions about compliance with pleading standards and sets the stage for the primary disputes in the early phases of litigation.

• A core evidentiary question will be the identification of the accused instrumentalities. The complaint's failure to name any specific products or services and its reliance on unfiled exhibits creates a fundamental ambiguity that will need to be resolved through discovery or amended pleadings.
• A central issue will be one of technical specificity: what is the plaintiff's precise theory of infringement? The conclusory allegations that the unspecified products "satisfy all elements" provide no basis for analysis and will likely be challenged, forcing the plaintiff to articulate how specific, real-world functionalities are alleged to map onto the claim limitations.
• A key legal and technical question will be one of definitional scope: can the abstract, economically-focused terms of the patents, such as "automated optimization" and "maximizing an aggregate utility," be shown to read on the actual operations of the yet-to-be-identified accused systems? The patent specifications provide detailed mathematical and logical frameworks that may set a high bar for proving infringement.