Patent Armory Inc v. Broadview Federal Credit Union

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Broadview Federal Credit Union (United States)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00067, N.D.N.Y., 01/14/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Northern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns advanced call center and communications management systems that use complex algorithms to optimize the matching of incoming communications to available agents or resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initiating document in this litigation. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2026-01-14	Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in traditional call center management, which often relies on static or externalized rules for routing calls to agents (Compl. ¶9; ’979 Patent, col. 2:41-57). These systems struggle with issues such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents and using inflexible "static grouping" of agents, which can reduce transactional throughput (’979 Patent, col. 4:25-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intelligent switching architecture where the decision-making for call routing is integrated at a low level within the communications management system itself (’979 Patent, col. 59:26-34). A processor computes an "optimum agent selection" based on the call's characteristics and databases of agent skills and costs, and then directly controls the routing of the call within the same system, as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1 (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This contrasts with architectures where routing intelligence is handled by a separate, high-level computer system that instructs a more basic switch.
• Technical Importance: This integrated approach sought to reduce latencies and communication overhead associated with externalizing complex routing decisions, allowing for more dynamic and efficient real-time call management (’979 Patent, col. 60:37-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications control system having a "common operating environment."
  • An input for receiving "call classification information."
  • A data structure representing "agent characteristics."
  • A processor that determines an "optimum agent" based on a "multivariate cost function" comparing at least three agents.
  • The processor also controls the call routing, with both the determining and routing functions being "performed within the common operating environment."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of optimally matching entities in a resource-constrained environment, such as an auction or a call center (’086 Patent, col. 38:1-29). Simple matching methods may fail to account for the broader economic impact of any single match, such as making a valuable resource unavailable for a potentially even more valuable future match.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is 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). The optimization considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for other potential matches. This frames the resource allocation problem as a sophisticated auction that balances immediate value with potential future value.
• Technical Importance: This methodology provides a framework for dynamic resource allocation that considers the system-wide impact of each decision, moving beyond simple one-to-one matching criteria (’086 Patent, col. 4:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for matching a first subset of entities with a second subset.
  • Storing "inferential targeting parameters" for the first subset.
  • Storing "characteristic parameters" for the second subset.
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor that considers:
    • An "economic surplus" of a mutually exclusive match.
    • An "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate subset.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that they "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’979 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’979 Patent but relies entirely on claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 3" to substantiate these claims (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The body of the complaint offers a conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent" but provides no specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶14).

’086 Infringement Allegations

Similarly, the complaint alleges direct and induced infringement of the ’086 Patent, referencing claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 4" (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The complaint states that these charts show the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’086 Patent Claims" but does not contain narrative detail regarding the specific functionality alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶23).

Identified Points of Contention

• ’979 Patent: A primary point of contention may revolve around the architectural limitation requiring that the "determining" and "routing" functions be "performed within the common operating environment." The analysis will likely question whether the Defendant's system integrates its routing intelligence at the low level required by the claim, or whether it uses a more conventional architecture where a separate, high-level application directs a functionally distinct switching component.
• ’086 Patent: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused system's optimization algorithm performs the specific functions of calculating an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." A central question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused system's method is functionally equivalent to the specific economic model claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’979 Patent

• The Term: "common operating environment"
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central architectural limitation of claim 1. The definition will be critical for determining whether the accused system's software and hardware architecture, specifically the relationship between its decision-making and call-switching components, falls within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may point to specification language describing the invention's implementation on a standard PC server architecture with a main processor and voice channel processors to argue that "common operating environment" should be construed broadly to cover different processes running on a single physical machine (’979 Patent, col. 59:60-60:7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that the intelligent control operates under the "same instance of the operating system, for example sharing the same message queue," as the interface to the voice channel processor (’979 Patent, col. 60:25-29). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a tightly integrated software environment, potentially excluding systems where components communicate over a network protocol.

’086 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: These terms define the core calculations of the claimed optimization method. The infringement case for the ’086 Patent may depend on whether the accused system's algorithm can be shown to calculate these specific economic values.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that these terms should be interpreted functionally to cover any algorithm that implicitly balances the immediate value of a match against the value of foregoing other potential matches, even if it does not use this specific terminology.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and detailed description frame the invention in the context of auctions and bidding, which may suggest that the terms should be construed according to their formal, quantitative definitions in economic theory, requiring an explicit calculation of these values (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 38:1-29).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" of the ’086 Patent, forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement and inducement (Compl. ¶¶20-22). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made for either patent.

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

• A core issue for the ’979 Patent will be one of architectural scope: does the "common operating environment" limitation require the routing intelligence and switching control to be integrated within a single software process or instance, or can it be construed to cover systems where these functions are performed by distinct applications communicating on a single server or across a network?
• A key evidentiary question for the ’086 Patent will be one of functional equivalence: can Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused system’s optimization algorithm performs calculations that map directly onto the patent’s claimed steps of determining an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• A foundational procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings. Given the complaint’s complete reliance on unprovided exhibits for its infringement allegations, an early focus of the case may be on the factual sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims once they are detailed in infringement contentions or amended pleadings.