Patent Armory Inc v. Related Companies LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: The Related Companies, L.P. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06638, S.D.N.Y., 08/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Southern District of New York and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business operations infringe patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based resource matching systems.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to automated systems for optimally matching resources, such as call center agents to callers, a critical technology for managing large-scale customer service and sales operations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, which often use simple first-come-first-served queuing. This approach fails to account for agents having different skills, leading to problems such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" who cannot handle the transaction or an "over-skilled agent" whose expertise is wasted on a simple query (’979 Patent, col. 4:25-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by calculating an "optimum agent selection." It does so by receiving a "communications classification" for an incoming call and processing it against a "database of skill weights" and a "database of agent skill scores" to find the best match (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This system moves beyond simple queuing to match an agent with the "best match of skills to the problem presented" (’979 Patent, col. 4:61-64).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from basic call distribution to dynamic, skill-based routing designed to improve a call center's overall transactional throughput and efficiency (’979 Patent, col. 4:55-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

• 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, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection, the processor directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a more sophisticated method of matching resources than simple skill-based routing by incorporating economic principles into the selection process. Simple matching may fail to account for the broader system-wide impact of allocating a specific resource (’086 Patent, col. 38:10-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization. This optimization considers not only the "economic surplus" of the immediate match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for potential future matches with other first entities (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 64:45-67).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents an evolution from optimizing individual transactions to optimizing for the global efficiency of the entire system, accounting for the future value of resources.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

• 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;
• storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for the second subset;
• performing, via a processor, an optimization with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate subset; and
• outputting a signal based on the optimization.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint, the public docket does not provide specific identification or a technical description of the accused products, systems, or methods. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). The specific factual basis for these allegations is contained in claim charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 3 and 4, which are not available on the public docket (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). The complaint therefore does not provide a narrative infringement theory for public analysis.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint's infringement allegations rely entirely on un-filed exhibits, a central question will be what factual evidence Plaintiff produces to demonstrate that the accused products practice the claimed technologies.
  • Technical Questions (’979 Patent): A potential point of dispute may be whether the accused system computes an "optimum agent selection" using distinct inputs that correspond to the claimed "database of skill weights" and "database of agent skill scores," or if it uses a different, more integrated method of calculation.
  • Scope Questions (’086 Patent): The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system's optimization considers the specific economic concept of "opportunity cost" as it relates to the unavailability of a resource for alternate future matches, a key limitation of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’979 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "optimum agent selection"
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claim's scope. The dispute may focus on how "optimum" the selection must be. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether infringement requires finding the single best agent in a given situation or merely an agent selected through a rational, multi-factor process that is better than random or simple queuing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function," which may be based on various economic or business goals, suggesting that "optimum" is context-dependent and not necessarily a single, mathematically perfect choice (’979 Patent, col. 65:29-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples provided in the patent demonstrate specific mathematical calculations involving weighted scores, which could suggest that "optimum" requires a specific type of quantitative maximization rather than a qualitative judgment (’979 Patent, col. 79:20–col. 80:46).

’086 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate subset of the plurality of first entities"
• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the core technical distinction of the invention. Infringement will likely depend on whether the accused system's resource allocation algorithm performs a forward-looking analysis that accounts for the value of reserving a resource for future potential needs, rather than a "greedy" algorithm that only optimizes for the present transaction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract frames the concept broadly, suggesting any optimization that accounts for the unavailability of a resource for an "alternate first entity" could meet the limitation (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains this concept in the context of a multi-step optimization and a "consolidated cost function," which may imply that the "opportunity cost" must be calculated through a specific, integrated process rather than a more general consideration of future needs (’086 Patent, col. 51:1-16; col. 65:48-61).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent occurring after Defendant was served with the complaint (Compl. ¶22). The alleged inducement is based on Defendant selling the accused products to customers and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’086 Patent based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶20-21). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

The litigation will likely center on the resolution of several key questions for the court:

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary demonstration: Given the complaint’s complete reliance on un-filed exhibits, a threshold question is what specific products are accused and what technical evidence will be presented to substantiate the conclusory allegations of infringement.
2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technical function: Does the accused system's optimization algorithm perform the specific, sophisticated function of calculating an "opportunity cost" related to the future unavailability of a resource as claimed in the ’086 Patent, or does it employ a simpler algorithm that only optimizes the immediate transaction, potentially aligning more closely with the art described in the earlier ’979 Patent?
3. A key question will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court construe the term "optimum agent selection" in the ’979 Patent? The definition will determine whether the claim requires a system that finds the single best agent or one that simply performs a rational, multi-factor selection process superior to basic queuing.