Patent Armory Inc v. Independent Health Association Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Independent Health Association, Inc. (NY)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-6364, S.D.N.Y., 08/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for handling customer communications infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching in telecommunications.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to advanced call center management systems that use multi-factor optimization and economic principles to intelligently route communications, a key function for efficiency in customer service and sales operations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420

• Patent Identification: 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 the challenge of efficiently managing call centers, which must balance providing high-quality customer service with the costs of staffing agents who have varying skill sets and availability (’420 Patent, col. 1:26-34). Traditional "first-come-first-served" routing is identified as often inefficient (’420 Patent, col. 2:48-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) through an "auction" framework. The system defines parameters for both the caller and available agents and performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the direct "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows for a more dynamic and economically efficient routing decision than simple queue-based systems (’420 Patent, col. 21:39-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from simple, sequential call routing to a holistic, economic model for optimizing call center resources in real time (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-8).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts exemplary method claims, with Claim 1 being the first independent method claim (Compl. ¶15).
  • Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent includes these essential elements:
    • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity
    • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for each of a plurality of second entities
    • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with at least one of the plurality of second entities
    • [performing the optimization also with respect to] an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the ’748 Patent addresses the inefficiencies of traditional call center management, where routing decisions are often based on simple rules that fail to account for the full context of caller needs and agent capabilities (’748 Patent, col. 1:21-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for routing communications by representing both sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) in terms of their "predicted characteristics," each associated with an "economic utility." The core of the solution is a process for "determining an optimal routing... by maximizing an aggregate utility" for all linkages between the sources and targets (’748 Patent, Abstract). This method moves beyond optimizing a single call-agent pairing to optimizing the entire set of available pairings for the system as a whole (’748 Patent, col. 24:43-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for a global optimization of call center resources, potentially improving overall system throughput and efficiency beyond what can be achieved by optimizing individual connections sequentially (’748 Patent, col. 27:8-14).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts exemplary claims, with Claim 1 being the first independent method claim (Compl. ¶21).
  • Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent includes these essential elements:
    • 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 plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an earlier member of the asserted patent family, describes a communications management system that uses a database of agent skill scores and skill weights corresponding to a communication's classification. A processor computes an optimum agent selection based on these factors and directly controls the routing of the communication (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where communications are received with an associated classification, characteristics of potential targets are stored, and an optimum target is determined through a combinatorial optimization. The optimization considers factors such as a cost-benefit analysis and the predicted availability of a target (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a direct predecessor to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining targeting parameters for a first entity and characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities. It then performs an automated optimization considering the economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of making a second entity unavailable for an alternate match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and states that this is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibits 6 through 10 (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the patents-in-suit but incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits that are not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The narrative allegations state that these missing charts compare exemplary claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrate that the products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Without the claim charts or a detailed description of the accused products, a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint's allegations, which rely entirely on unattached exhibits and offer no specific factual descriptions of the accused products' operation, meet the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading established by Twombly and Iqbal.
  • Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a central dispute will likely involve the scope of the economic-focused claim terms. For the ’420 and ’086 Patents, this raises the question of whether the accused system performs a function that can be properly characterized as an "auction" that calculates "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." For the ’748 Patent, the question is whether the system performs a global optimization to "maximiz[e] an aggregate utility" across multiple potential pairings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term is the central functional step of Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the Defendant's system performs a calculation that meets this two-part economic definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific, sophisticated economic analysis beyond simple cost-based routing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses various factors that contribute to a "cost-utility function," such as agent skill, training costs, and call outcomes, which could support a construction covering any system that weighs multiple economic-style inputs (’420 Patent, col. 23:45-24:24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit recitation of both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" in the claim itself suggests that both distinct economic concepts must be part of the optimization, potentially narrowing the term to exclude systems that only consider one or the other, or that use a different economic model (’420 Patent, Abstract).

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term defines the goal of the claimed routing determination. The dispute will likely turn on whether the accused system performs a system-wide, or "aggregate," optimization, as opposed to a series of individual, localized optimizations.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's discussion of optimizing for "long term call center operation" could support a broader reading where any system-level efficiency goal is considered to be maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, col. 36:32-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's language of "maximizing" an "aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination" suggests a specific mathematical process that considers the entire set of possible pairings at a given time to find a global optimum, potentially excluding systems that merely optimize pairings sequentially (’748 Patent, Abstract).

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" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, as there are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s reliance on conclusory allegations and unattached exhibits provide the Defendant with sufficient notice of the specific infringement theory to satisfy federal pleading standards, or will it be found deficient?
• A core technical question will be one of economic functionality: assuming the case proceeds, does the accused technology perform the specific, sophisticated 'auction' and 'economic optimization' functions recited in the patents-in-suit, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the system’s actual operation and the patents’ economic-centric claim language?
• A key evidentiary question will concern intent for indirect infringement: what specific instructions in Defendant's product literature and website materials, as alleged in the complaint, actively encourage users to perform all steps of the claimed methods, thereby demonstrating the specific intent required to prove inducement?