Patent Armory Inc v. American Terminals Distribution Center Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: American Terminals Distribution Center, Inc. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Golomb Legal, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-17125, D.N.J., 11/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of New Jersey on the basis that Defendant is incorporated in the state, maintains an established place of business in the District, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing and entity matching systems, typically used in call centers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced automated call distributor (ACD) systems that optimize the routing of incoming communications (e.g., calls) to the most suitable agents based on multi-factor analysis, including agent skills and economic considerations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Application Filed
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2010-03-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Application Filed
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2025-11-03	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiencies of traditional call centers that use simplistic routing rules like "first-come-first-served" or "longest-idle-agent" ('979 Patent, col. 2:40-44, col. 3:10-14). These methods fail to account for agents' varying skills, leading to suboptimal outcomes such as the "under-skilled agent problem," the "over-skilled agent problem," and inefficient "static grouping" of agents ('979 Patent, col. 4:24-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that integrates intelligent decision-making directly into the low-level call routing architecture ('979 Patent, col. 59:8-22). The system receives a "communications classification" for an incoming call, consults a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" to which the call is directly routed ('979 Patent, Abstract). This moves beyond simple queuing to a dynamic, skills-based optimization performed within the communications server itself ('979 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The approach claims to improve call center efficiency by matching caller needs with specific agent competencies in real-time, reducing latency and system complexity by integrating the optimization logic with the switching hardware ('979 Patent, col. 60:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶12). Independent method claim 11 is representative.
• Essential Elements of Claim 11:
  • Receiving a plurality of communications, each with associated classification information.
  • Storing information representing characteristics of a plurality of potential targets (e.g., agents).
  • Determining an optimum target for each communication using a "multivariate cost function" that compares at least three potential targets.
  • Routing the communication to the optimum target, where the determining and routing steps are performed within a "common operating environment."

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its related patent, the ’086 Patent addresses the inefficiencies of conventional call centers that do not intelligently match callers to agents with appropriate skills, leading to poor transactional throughput and resource utilization (’086 Patent, col. 2:21-29, col. 4:29-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization (’086 Patent, Abstract). This optimization is based on maximizing an "economic surplus" from the match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making that specific agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 75:1-12). This frames the matching problem in economic and auction-theory terms, moving beyond simple skill scoring to a more complex utility calculation.
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a more sophisticated framework for resource allocation in a communications system by treating each potential match as a micro-economic event, accounting for both the direct value of the match and its impact on the overall system's capacity to handle future events (’086 Patent, col. 73:1-74:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶18). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • Storing data for a "first subset" (e.g., callers) representing "inferential targeting parameters."
  • Storing data for a "second subset" (e.g., agents) representing their "characteristic parameters."
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor with respect to at least an "economic surplus" of a match between the subsets.
  • The optimization must also consider an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate first subset.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint document. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference its infringement allegations from claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’979 Patent): The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the logic used by the accused products constitutes a "multivariate cost function" as required by the claims. The dispute could center on whether a simple rules-based system meets this limitation or if a more complex mathematical optimization is required. A related question is whether the accused system's components operate within a "common operating environment," which could be disputed if the decision-making logic and call-switching hardware are physically or logically separated.
  • Technical Questions (’086 Patent): A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused system performs an optimization that calculates both an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." The complaint does not provide facts explaining how the accused products allegedly perform these specific, sophisticated economic calculations, which are distinct from generic skill-based matching.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’979 Patent:

• The Term: "multivariate cost function" (from claim 11)
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed optimization. Its construction will determine the level of mathematical complexity required for an infringing system. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simple, single-factor routing rules.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimizing for "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which may suggest any function that considers multiple variables to achieve a goal could suffice (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details complex calculations involving agent cost factors, anticipated outcomes, and opportunity costs, culminating in mathematical formulae such as An=Max({[Acn1∑(rs1ans1)+Acn2]+Bcn}+Ccn)+Dcn) (’979 Patent, col. 65:57-62). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of weighted, multi-term economic calculation.

For the ’086 Patent:

• The Term: "opportunity cost" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term, along with "economic surplus," defines the specific economic model claimed. The infringement case for this patent may depend entirely on whether the accused system can be shown to calculate not just the value of a proposed match, but also the value lost by making an agent unavailable for other potential, future matches.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used in a general economic sense, which could allow it to read on any system that reserves highly-skilled agents for anticipated high-value calls, even without an explicit numerical calculation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains "opportunity cost" as a distinct variable (Dc) in a mathematical optimization formula, representing the cost of "allocating agent n to the particular call" instead of to other competing matters (’086 Patent, col. 65:57-64). This suggests a specific, calculated value is required, not just a general routing preference.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. This allegation is based on the claim that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶ 21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but lays a foundation for it regarding the ’086 Patent by alleging that service of the complaint constitutes actual knowledge of infringement and that Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21).

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "multivariate cost function" in the ’979 Patent require a specific mathematical optimization, or can it be construed to cover more general, rules-based systems that consider multiple factors? Similarly, for the ’086 Patent, can the terms "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" be met without explicit, numerical calculations corresponding to those economic concepts?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused products internally perform the specific, complex optimizations required by the claims? Given the lack of detail in the complaint, this suggests that the case will heavily rely on discovery of Defendant’s source code and system architecture to establish a functional correspondence with the claimed methods.