Patent Armory Inc v. U Haul Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: U-Haul International, Inc. (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-588, W.D. Tex., 08/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Western District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for optimizing communications in environments like call centers by using algorithms to match callers with agents based on skills, cost-utility functions, and economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any pre-suit notice, prior litigation between the parties, or licensing history regarding 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’s background section describes the inefficiencies in traditional call centers, which typically use simple first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent routing logic, leading to suboptimal matching of callers to agents and inefficient use of resources (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 2:26-3:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) to a second entity (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization. This optimization considers not just skills, but also an "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches, effectively creating an auction-like dynamic for routing communications (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system may also use this optimization to balance short-term efficiency with long-term goals like agent training (’420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for call centers to manage communications based on economic and utility-based principles, moving beyond static routing rules to a more dynamic and globally optimized system (’420 Patent, col. 4:11-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims for the ’420 Patent, referring generally to "one or more claims" and to charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶15, 17).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for computer-integrated telecommunications systems to handle real-time communications intelligently, overcoming the latencies and limitations of systems where complex routing decisions are externalized to high-level, non-deterministic software platforms (’748 Patent, col. 1:49-2:24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for routing communications by maximizing an "aggregate utility" based on predicted characteristics of both the source (e.g., caller) and potential targets (e.g., agents) (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture integrates this intelligent routing logic at a low level, allowing it to consider complex factors like long-term operational goals (e.g., agent training) versus short-term efficiency in real time (’748 Patent, Fig. 1, elements 308, 312).
• Technical Importance: The technology enables more sophisticated, real-time, and context-aware routing decisions to be made within the core communications switching architecture, potentially improving performance and reducing reliance on separate high-level management systems (’748 Patent, col. 18:9-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims for the ’748 Patent, referring generally to "one or more claims" and to charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶21, 26).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for optimizing the selection of an agent to handle a communication. The system receives a classification of the communication and computes a cost-benefit outcome based on a database of agent skill scores and a database of skill weights corresponding to the classification, before controlling the routing of the communication to the selected agent (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring to charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶30, 35).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by unspecified "Defendant products" but provides no detail on which features of those products are accused of infringing the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a communications control system that determines an optimum target for a communication from a set of potential targets. The determination is based on a combinatorial optimization that considers both the characteristics of the communication and the characteristics of the targets to produce a cost-benefit analysis for the pairing (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring to charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶39, 41).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by unspecified "Defendant products" but provides no detail on which features of those products are accused of infringing the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶39).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching entities by defining inferential targeting parameters for a first entity and characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities. The system then performs an automated optimization that considers the economic surplus of a match as well as the opportunity cost of making a second entity unavailable for an alternate match (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring to charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶45, 50).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by unspecified "Defendant products" but provides no detail on which features of those products are accused of infringing the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, systems, or services by name, referring only in general terms to "Defendant products" or "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶15, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail regarding the technical functionality of the accused instrumentalities for analysis. It makes conclusory statements that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit without describing how they operate (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint document. The body of the complaint itself provides no narrative description of how any accused instrumentality meets the limitations of any asserted patent claim.

As a result, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations or an identification of potential points of contention is not possible from the provided document.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims or provide sufficient technical detail regarding the infringement allegations to allow for an analysis of key claim terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on knowledge acquired at least from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶25, 34, 49). The complaint further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to infringe, referencing exhibits that were not provided (Compl. ¶¶24, 33, 48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748, ’797, and ’086 Patents, based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 47). The prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which may suggest an intent to pursue enhanced damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief, N.i.).

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

• A primary threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which identifies no accused products by name and provides no technical details of infringement beyond incorporating exhibits that were not filed, satisfy the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement?
• A foundational evidentiary question will be one of technical applicability: can the technologies described in the patents-in-suit, which are focused on sophisticated, real-time optimization algorithms for call centers and auction-based matching, be plausibly mapped onto the actual customer service, logistics, or internal communications systems of Defendant’s truck and storage rental business? The complaint provides no facts to bridge this potential gap.