Patent Armory Inc v. Adapthealth Patient Care Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Name: Patent Armory Inc v. AdaptHealth Patient Care Solutions LLC
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: AdaptHealth Patient Care Solutions LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03443, E.D. Pa., 07/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to sophisticated call center management technologies that optimize the routing of communications (like phone calls) to agents by considering agent skills and economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit or pre-suit licensing negotiations between the parties.

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: Traditional call centers use relatively simple automatic call distribution (ACD) systems, such as first-in-first-out queues or basic team assignments, which can be inefficient (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-12). These systems often struggle with problems like routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents and create static agent groupings that do not adapt well to changing call volumes and types, reducing overall throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:34-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by performing an "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the characteristics of the caller and the skills of the agents but also calculates an "economic surplus" for a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, moving beyond simple routing to a market-based allocation of resources (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:46-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to dynamic, economically-driven resource optimization within a telecommunications environment (’420 Patent, col. 22:42-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its narrative sections, instead incorporating by reference an external claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17-18).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method," Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• The complaint does not provide a copy of the ’748 Patent or sufficient detail to analyze the specific problem it addresses or the patented solution (Compl. ¶10). The patent’s title suggests it relates to technology for intelligently routing communications, which is consistent with the subject matter of the other patents-in-suit.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead incorporating by reference an external claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶26-27).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent title suggests a control system for telephone networks that employs intelligent logic for routing calls (Compl. ¶11). This technology generally aims to improve call center efficiency by matching callers with appropriate agents based on more than just the order in which calls are received.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint refers to exemplary claims in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶32-33).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’979 Patent but does not specify which features of those products are accused (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued September 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’979 Patent, the title of the ’253 Patent indicates it covers a telephony control system with intelligent call routing capabilities (Compl. ¶12). Such systems typically involve software and hardware that analyze incoming communications and direct them to the most suitable destination based on predefined criteria.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint refers to exemplary claims in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶38-39).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’253 Patent without specifying the accused features (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The title is identical to that of the ’420 Patent, suggesting it belongs to the same family and covers a system for matching entities, such as callers and agents, using an auction-based framework (Compl. ¶13). This framework likely involves optimizing matches based on economic principles like value and opportunity cost.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint refers to exemplary claims in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶47-48).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’086 Patent without specifying the accused features (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products in the main body. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in external exhibits not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. The infringement counts state only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No allegations regarding the products' market context or commercial importance are provided.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), which were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The narrative infringement theory is limited to conclusory statements that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17). Without the claim charts or more detailed factual allegations, a tabular analysis of the infringement contentions cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the technology described in the ’420 Patent and the titles of the other patents-in-suit, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions for the court:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "auction" as used in the ’420 and ’086 Patents. The question may be whether this term, which implies a competitive bidding process, can be construed to cover a sophisticated, multi-factor call routing algorithm that may not involve explicit bids. Similarly, the scope of terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be what the accused products' algorithms actually do. For the intelligent routing patents (’748, ’979, ’253), the analysis will depend on whether the accused systems perform the specific steps and optimizations required by the claims, or if they operate on a different technical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not specify the asserted claims, the following analysis is based on key technical terms from the ’420 Patent’s abstract and specification that appear central to the invention.

• The Term: "auction"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the ’420 and ’086 Patents. The patentee may argue for a broad definition covering any system that values and matches entities from competing pools, while the defendant may argue for a narrower construction requiring specific elements of a traditional auction (e.g., bids, prices, a winner-determination mechanism). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent reads on a broad class of modern resource-allocation systems or is limited to systems with explicit bidding features.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description discusses the optimization in terms of maximizing an "aggregate value," which could be argued to represent a generalized, abstract form of auction (’420 Patent, col. 45:63-46:3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discusses embodiments where potential recipients "submit a bid for the call, with the call being routed to the auction winner" and refers to "first or second price, according to the auction rules," which could support a narrower construction requiring concrete bidding mechanics (’420 Patent, col. 46:20-24).

• The Term: "economic surplus"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the abstract of the ’420 Patent and is a key parameter for the claimed optimization. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused system calculates a value that meets the definition of an "economic surplus" or if it simply uses a non-economic scoring or ranking metric.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes using a "cost function normalized in economic units" and monetizing factors like "customer satisfaction," suggesting a broad interpretation that could cover various forms of utility calculation (’420 Patent, col. 24:37-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term requires a specific calculation of consumer and producer surplus as understood in formal economics, potentially limiting the claim scope to systems that perform such explicit calculations.

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).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement." It alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, but bases this knowledge solely on the service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This suggests a basis for post-suit, but not pre-suit, enhanced damages.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “auction,” which is central to the ’420 and ’086 Patents, be construed broadly to cover a sophisticated, multi-factor call routing system, or is its meaning limited to a process involving explicit bidding mechanics? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal to the infringement analysis for a significant portion of the asserted patent portfolio.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual sufficiency: given the complaint's general allegations and reliance on unprovided exhibits, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant’s products perform the specific, multi-step optimization and routing functions required by the asserted claims of the intelligent routing patents?