DCT

6:24-cv-06620

Patent Armory Inc v. Xerox Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-06620, W.D.N.Y., 10/21/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of New York because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, by using economic models and multi-factorial analysis rather than simple rule-based routing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit or pre-suit communications between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,269,253 & 7,023,979
2003-03-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,237,420 & 9,456,086
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2006-04-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issues
2024-10-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction"

  • 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 describes the inefficiency of traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems in call centers, which often use simple first-in-first-out queues or static, inflexible "skill-based" groupings for routing customer calls to agents, leading to suboptimal matches and delays (ʼ420 Patent, col. 3:1-4:57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" based on economic principles. This optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches, effectively creating an auction-like system for routing communications (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:51-64).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, market-based system that treats agent time as a resource to be allocated for maximum economic efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶15). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities, representing their characteristic parameters.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method"

  • Patent Identification: 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 problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations of conventional, non-deterministic call center management systems that struggle to efficiently handle high volumes of electronic customer contact and balance service quality with resource utilization (ʼ748 Patent, col. 1:25-2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their "predicted characteristics," each having an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing path by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the characteristics of the sources and destinations (’748 Patent, Abstract). This solution integrates intelligent, inferential decision-making into the low-level communications management architecture itself (’748 Patent, col. 18:9-21).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to embed complex, utility-based optimization directly into the routing layer, allowing for more dynamic and intelligent resource allocation than traditional systems that separate routing logic from high-level management software (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶21). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A system with a processor and memory.
    • Representing predicted characteristics of communication sources, each having an economic utility.
    • Representing predicted characteristics of communication targets, each having an economic utility.
    • Determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the limitations of traditional call center routing. The invention provides a system that moves beyond simple routing rules by performing a "combinatorial optimization" to determine the best match between a communication (e.g., a call) and a target (e.g., an agent), based on a multi-variate cost function that considers characteristics of both (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology but provides no specific details (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for intelligently routing calls. The system receives a "communications classification," consults a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" before directly controlling the routing of the call (’7023979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶36, ¶41).

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.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for matching entities by defining their characteristics with "multivalued scalar data" and then performing an "automated optimization." The optimization is based on the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for other potential matches, creating an auction-based framework for resource allocation (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" without detailing the accused functionality (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in external exhibits not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’420 Patent and directly and indirectly infringes the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶25). However, it incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6 and 7) that were not filed with the complaint and provides no specific factual allegations in the pleading to map claim elements to accused product features (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27). The narrative infringement theory is that by making, using, and selling the "Exemplary Defendant Products," Defendant practices the patented methods for intelligent, auction-based, and utility-maximizing communication routing.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be whether the unspecified accused products perform the specific functions required by the claims. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that an accused Xerox product performs an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" as required by the ’420 Patent, or "maximizes an aggregate utility" as required by the ’748 Patent? The complaint itself provides no such evidence.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key terms. A central question is whether terms rooted in the context of call centers and auctions, such as "auction," "first entity," and "economic utility," can be construed to read on the features and functions of the accused Xerox products, once those products are identified and their operations are analyzed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept, distinguishing it from conventional, static routing systems. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the function performed by an accused product meets the constructed definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional limitation that is not defined by simple structure, making its scope a likely point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimization in general terms, such as influencing agent selection with "other factors, such as training opportunities," which may suggest a process that seeks a better outcome based on multiple inputs, not necessarily a rigid mathematical formula (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract explicitly ties the optimization to "an economic surplus of a respective match" and an "opportunity cost," and the specification provides a mathematical formula representing this optimization, which could support a narrower construction requiring these specific economic calculations (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:50-54).

The Term: "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core metric for the claimed routing determination. The case may depend on whether the accused products can be shown to calculate or rely on a metric that falls within the scope of "economic utility."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that some business goals, like "customer satisfaction," must be "converted and normalized into economic terms," suggesting that "economic utility" is a broad concept that can encompass non-monetary factors translated into a common metric (’748 Patent, col. 24:36-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides examples of "simple an economic parameter, such as sales volume, profit, or the like," which could be used to argue for a narrower definition tied more directly to financial or quantifiable business outcomes (’748 Patent, col. 24:32-36).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations state that Defendant distributes "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, ¶40, ¶48).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 Patents, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on "the service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶23, ¶38, ¶47). These allegations appear to support a claim for post-suit knowledge and potential enhancement of damages for any post-suit infringement, rather than pre-suit willfulness.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary support: given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations and named accused products, a key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any specific Xerox product performs the complex, multi-factor "automated optimization" and "utility maximization" functions at the core of the asserted patents.
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "economic utility," which are described in the context of dynamic call-center agent matching, be construed to cover the actual functionalities of Defendant's products, the nature of which is not yet described in the pleadings?
  • A further question will concern the viability of the pleadings: the complaint's reliance on unspecified products and external exhibits not filed with the court raises the question of whether it meets the pleading standards for patent infringement established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law.