DCT

2:23-cv-00407

Patent Armory Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00407, E.D. Tex., 11/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for optimizing the management of communications in environments such as call centers, moving beyond simple queuing to sophisticated, factor-based matching of callers to agents.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint, indicating that an Original Complaint was previously filed and served, which forms the basis for Plaintiff's post-suit willfulness allegations regarding one of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Application Filing Date
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Issue Date
2010-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Application Filing Date
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Issue Date
2023-11-28 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

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.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) systems in call centers, which can route calls to "under-skilled" agents who cannot handle the transaction or "over-skilled" agents whose expertise is wasted on a simple call, reducing the center's overall transactional throughput (US 7,269,253 B1, col. 4:35-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that moves beyond simple queuing to intelligently route calls by using a processor to optimize a "cost-utility function" for the call center's operation (US 7,269,253 B1, Fig. 1). This function considers various factors, such as agent skills, agent costs, call characteristics, and even the utility of using a call as a training opportunity for a less-skilled agent, to select the optimal agent for each incoming communication (US 7,269,253 B1, col. 23:53–24:50).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static, rules-based call distribution to dynamic, objective-driven optimization to improve the economic efficiency of large-scale customer contact centers (US 7,269,253 B1, col. 2:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the asserted claims, as the referenced claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 3) was not included with the pleading (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).

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.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical problem of efficiently matching entities in a communications system, such as callers to agents in a call center, where simple first-come-first-served routing is inefficient and fails to account for the varying values and costs associated with different potential pairings (US 9,456,086 B1, col. 2:43-3:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by defining targeting parameters for the first entity and characteristic parameters for the second. The system then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches, framing the selection process as a type of auction (US 9,456,086 B1, Abstract). The system may conduct a "series of auctions" to select communications paths from among available competing paths (US 9,456,086 B1, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: This auction-based approach provides a framework for optimizing resource allocation in real-time communications by incorporating economic principles, such as surplus and opportunity cost, directly into the routing logic (US 9,456,086 B1, col. 1:57–2:2).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the asserted claims, as the referenced claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 4) was not included with the pleading (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14, 18, 23). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, the accused instrumentalities cannot be identified from the pleading's text. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a narrative infringement theory or claim charts for analysis. The infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 23-24). The complaint's allegations are conclusory, stating only that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided document.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of the ’086 Patent. This allegation is based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" which allegedly instruct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patent (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also alleges that, since being served with the complaint, Defendant has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’086 Patent based on knowledge obtained from the service of the Original Complaint. It alleges that despite this "actual knowledge," Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products into the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 20-21).

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which makes infringement allegations entirely by reference to extrinsic exhibits that were not provided with the pleading, state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, or does it represent a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action?
  • A core factual question will be the identification of the accused instrumentality: what specific systems, services, or methods of American Airlines, Inc., a passenger airline, are alleged to practice the claimed technologies of intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching, and what evidence will be presented to substantiate these allegations?