Patent Armory Inc v. MSC Industrial Direct Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04483, E.D.N.Y., 08/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology domain is automated communications management, a critical component of modern call centers and e-commerce platforms designed to improve efficiency and customer outcomes.
• 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	’979 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-07	’086 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued April 4, 2006. (Compl. ¶9; ’979 Patent, front page).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers where calls are routed using simple criteria like first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent. These methods fail to account for agents' varying skill sets, leading to suboptimal pairings where agents may be "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" for a given call, which reduces overall transactional throughput. (’979 Patent, col. 3:26-4:68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by receiving a "communications classification," consulting databases of "agent skill scores" and "skill weights," and using a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection." The system then directly controls the routing of the call based on this multi-factor computation, rather than on a simple queue position. (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables call centers to dynamically match the specific needs of an incoming communication to the particular skills of an available agent, aiming to improve metrics like efficiency and cost. (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core concept.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications management system comprising an input for receiving a communications classification;
  • A database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification;
  • A database of agent skill scores; and
  • A processor for computing an optimum agent selection and directly controlling the routing of the call.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued September 27, 2016. (Compl. ¶10; ’086 Patent, front page).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’979 Patent—the inefficiency of simple, non-optimized matching systems—but frames the solution in the broader context of an auction between different types of entities. (’086 Patent, col. 3:4-4:68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a customer) with a second entity (e.g., a service agent) by performing an "automated optimization." This optimization considers not only the characteristics of the entities but also economic concepts such as the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one match versus another. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This method formalizes the matching process using economic principles, suggesting a system capable of more sophisticated, multi-factorial optimizations that balance immediate match quality with broader system-level considerations. (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-66:22).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for matching a first subset of entities with a second subset of entities, comprising:
  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for the first subset and "characteristic parameters" for the second subset;
  • Performing an automated optimization considering "at least an economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for an alternate match; and
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify the specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’979 Patent and direct and induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶12, 18, 22). It states that infringement is detailed in claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 4) that are incorporated by reference but were not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’979 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).

’086 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe by practicing the claimed technology. (Compl. ¶¶18, 23). It further alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes product literature and website materials that instruct and encourage end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶21).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be what the accused products actually do. The analysis will depend on evidence demonstrating that the accused systems perform a multi-factorial computation to select an "optimum" agent (’979 Patent) or conduct an "optimization" based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent), as opposed to a simpler, rules-based matching process.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether the term "directly controlling a routing" in the ’979 Patent requires the processor that performs the selection computation to also execute the final network switching, or if it can be read on a system where the processor sends an instruction to a separate switching component.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "optimum agent selection" (from ’979 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the central functional limitation of Claim 1. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate the level of computational complexity required to infringe; Defendant may argue its system performs a simple "best available" match that does not rise to the level of an "optimum" selection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "optimum" can relate to various business goals, stating selection may be based on "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which could support a broader meaning not tied to a single, rigid formula. (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 1 illustrate the process as involving the optimization of a "cost-utility function." This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of mathematical or economic calculation. (’979 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 308, 312).
• The Term: "economic surplus" (from ’086 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the "performing... an optimization" step and is a cornerstone of the infringement allegation for the ’086 Patent. The dispute will likely turn on whether the accused system's matching logic calculates or considers a metric that falls within the construed scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit mathematical definition for "economic surplus" in the specification, instead using the term in the abstract and claims. This absence of a specific definition in the written description may support a broader interpretation covering any calculated measure of value or utility from a match. (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 75:18-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's description of the invention's operation centers on optimizing a "cost-utility function" in a call-center context. This could be used to argue that "economic surplus" should be construed more narrowly as being tied to this specific implementation. (’086 Patent, col. 65:1-66:22).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The alleged factual basis is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’086 Patent based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge," and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶¶20-22).

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

This case, as currently pleaded, presents several fundamental questions for the court.

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: given that the complaint omits the identity and specific functionality of the accused products, a key question will be what evidence Plaintiff provides to substantiate its claims that Defendant’s systems perform the complex, multi-factorial "optimizations" required by the patents-in-suit.
• A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms rooted in economic theory, such as "optimum agent selection" and "economic surplus," be construed broadly enough to read on the accused systems, or will their scope be narrowed by the specification's examples to require specific cost-utility calculations that the accused systems may not perform?
• A key question for the inducement claim will be one of intent: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's product literature not only instructed users on how to operate the accused systems but did so with the specific intent to encourage infringement of the ’086 Patent?