Patent Armory Inc v. Letsgetchecked Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: LetsGetChecked, INC. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-10016, S.D.N.Y., 12/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a telecommunications context.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to automated call distribution (ACD) and computer telephony integration (CTI) systems used in call centers to optimize the routing of communications (e.g., customer calls) to available agents based on various economic and non-economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a large, interrelated family. For example, U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 is a continuation of an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,860,391, which is a divisional of an application that issued as asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086. This extensive prosecution history suggests the patent specifications may contain definitions or disclaimers relevant to claim scope.

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 describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, which typically use simple "first-come-first-served" or static "queue/team" models for routing calls to agents. These models can lead to mismatches, such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" who cannot handle the transaction or an "over-skilled agent" whose expertise is wasted, reducing overall throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated matching system that treats the allocation of communications to agents as an economic optimization problem. Instead of simple skill-matching, the system performs an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for a different, potentially more valuable, future match (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This cost-utility function can be adapted based on whether the call center is operating near capacity (’420 Patent, col. 23:41-50).
• Technical Importance: The technical approach aims to improve call center efficiency by applying economic principles to real-time routing decisions, moving beyond static skill assignments to a dynamic, utility-maximizing framework (’420 Patent, col. 2:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary method claims without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

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 same technical problems as the related ’420 Patent, focusing on the limitations of conventional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems that struggle to optimally balance competing goals like service quality and resource efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 2:26-34, via shared specification).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for intelligent routing based on maximizing an "aggregate utility." The system represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and communication targets (e.g., agents) by their "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility." It then determines the optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing the total utility of all connections (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture is depicted as involving a call router that receives inputs describing agent characteristics and call classifications to perform this optimization (’748 Patent, Fig. 3, via shared specification).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for optimizing entire communications networks, not just single pairings, by using predictive characteristics and economic utility to maximize the value of all concurrent connections (’748 Patent, col. 18:8-21, via shared specification).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary claims without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing system and method.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

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

Issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from an earlier part of the same patent family, describes a telephony control system that intelligently routes calls. It addresses the problem of inefficient call distribution by proposing a system that can optimize agent selection based on a cost-utility function, considering factors like agent skills, training opportunities, and anticipated call outcomes (’979 Patent, col. 18:8-21, via shared specification).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least one exemplary method claim (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

Issued September 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is also part of the same family and addresses similar problems in call center management. The invention involves a system for optimizing the matching of a communication with a handler by predicting issues, analyzing handler profiles, and selecting an optimum handler, all controlled within a common process (’253 Patent, col. 33:50-62, via shared specification).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least one exemplary method claim (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶38).

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

Issued September 27, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a direct ancestor of the ’420 Patent, describes a system for matching entities using an auction framework. The invention proposes solving the resource allocation problem by defining parameters for a first entity (e.g., a caller) and second entities (e.g., agents) and performing an automated optimization based on the economic surplus and opportunity cost of a potential match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least one exemplary claim (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products or services in its narrative sections. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are detailed in claim chart exhibits incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17, 21, 26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). This suggests the accused instrumentality is a system that receives incoming communications and routes them to personnel based on an optimization algorithm. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific functionality or their commercial importance and market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) for each asserted patent but does not attach them. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

'420 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe the ’420 Patent by practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶17). The core of this allegation is that the accused system matches incoming communications with agents by performing an automated optimization that considers factors corresponding to the claimed "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," rather than using a simple, non-economic routing scheme (Compl. ¶15; ’420 Patent, Abstract).

'748 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe the ’748 Patent by satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶26). The infringement theory suggests that the accused system represents both communication sources and targets using predictive characteristics, assigns an economic utility to each, and determines an optimal routing by maximizing the aggregate utility of all pairings, as recited in the claims (Compl. ¶21; ’748 Patent, Abstract).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the construction of terms with specific economic meanings, such as "auction", "economic surplus", and "opportunity cost". A question for the court will be whether these terms, as used in the patents, can be construed to read on the functionality of a customer service routing system that optimizes based on non-monetary metrics like customer satisfaction, agent skill level, or predicted call duration.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what calculations the accused system actually performs. Does the complaint provide evidence that the accused product’s routing logic performs the specific "multifactorial optimization" required by the claims, or does it employ a more conventional, heuristic-based skill-matching algorithm that Plaintiff has merely relabeled with claim terms?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "auction"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the titles of the ’420 and ’086 patents and is central to their claimed solution. Whether Defendant’s system for assigning a customer communication to an agent constitutes an "auction" will likely be a primary point of contention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the "auction" in the context of a competitive allocation where multiple agents are potential targets for a call, suggesting any system that selects the "best" agent from a pool could be considered an auction (’420 Patent, col. 46:15-25).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes specific embodiments where potential recipients "submit a bid for the call" and the system includes an "economic component," which could support a narrower construction requiring an explicit bidding or price-setting mechanism (’420 Patent, col. 46:15-25).

The Term: "economic surplus"

• Context and Importance: This limitation in the ’420 and ’086 patents requires the system's optimization to be based on a specific economic concept. The definition will be critical to determining if the accused system's non-monetary optimization metrics (e.g., 'customer satisfaction score') meet this element.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses business goals like "customer satisfaction" and states they must be "converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization," which may support reading the term on any quantifiable utility metric (’420 Patent, col. 24:36-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also references simple economic parameters like "sales volume, profit, or the like," which could be used to argue that "economic surplus" requires a direct link to a monetary or financial outcome, not just an abstract utility score (’420 Patent, col. 24:33-36).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "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 exist at least from the date the complaint was served (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 patents, it pleads that the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). This allegation establishes a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any infringement occurring after the complaint was filed.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent claim terms rooted in formal economic theory, such as "auction" and "economic surplus", be construed broadly enough to cover the algorithms used by a modern communications routing platform that likely optimizes for non-monetary operational metrics like efficiency or customer satisfaction?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: assuming a favorable claim construction, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused system actually performs the specific, multi-factor "automated optimization" that considers concepts like "opportunity cost," as opposed to employing a more conventional, heuristic-based routing logic that falls short of the claimed invention? The complaint's reliance on unattached exhibits leaves this question entirely open.