Patent Armory Inc v. Dave & Buster's Entertainment Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00465, E.D. Tex., 10/04/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents concern technologies for optimizing the allocation of resources in communications centers, such as routing incoming customer calls to the most appropriate service agents.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings (e.g., IPRs) involving the patents-in-suit.

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: The patent's background describes the inefficiencies of traditional call centers, which often use simple first-in, first-out call queues or static, skill-based team assignments. These approaches can lead to mismatches, such as routing a call to an under-skilled or over-skilled agent, which reduces transactional throughput ('420 Patent, col. 4:36-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention reframes the task of connecting a caller to an agent as an "auction." It proposes a system that performs an "automated optimization" to match a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by maximizing a calculated "economic surplus." This calculation considers not only the quality of the match but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential calls ('420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:5-22:5).
• Technical Importance: This auction-based model provides a method for dynamic, economically-driven resource allocation in a communications center, moving beyond simple skill matching to a more holistic optimization of agent assignments ('420 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not filed with the pleading (Compl. ¶15, 17). Assuming assertion of the lead independent claim, Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity.
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for the first entity representing "inferential targeting parameters."
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for each second entity representing "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," issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the limitations of conventional computer telephony systems, which typically handle real-time communications with dedicated systems using simple, predetermined routing rules, while externalizing more complex analysis ('748 Patent, col. 1:49-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a communications routing system that makes decisions by "maximizing an aggregate utility." This is achieved by using processors to analyze the "predicted characteristics" and associated "economic utility" of both the communication sources (e.g., callers) and the available targets (e.g., agents) to determine an optimal routing path ('748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system is designed to perform this intelligent routing within a low-level communications management architecture ('748 Patent, col. 18:25-32).
• Technical Importance: The technology allows for the integration of complex, utility-based optimization algorithms directly into the communications routing process, enabling more dynamic and intelligent real-time decision-making than traditional static routing systems ('748 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not filed with the pleading (Compl. ¶21, 26). Assuming assertion of the lead independent claim, Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing system for routing between sources and targets.
  • A data structure storing predicted characteristics and an "economic utility" for the plurality of sources.
  • A data structure storing predicted characteristics and an "economic utility" for the plurality of targets.
  • A processor configured to determine an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the predicted characteristics of the source and destination.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses problems in call center management, such as inefficiently routing calls to agents who are either over-skilled or under-skilled for the task ('979 Patent, col. 4:35-56). The patented solution is a system that uses a processor to analyze characteristics of an incoming call and skill scores of available agents, performing a "multifactorial optimization" to determine the optimal agent to handle the call ('979 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:42-59).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, addresses the challenge of efficiently routing calls in a call center to the most appropriate agents ('253 Patent, col. 4:35-56). The invention provides a system that uses a processor to perform a "combinatorial optimization" to match incoming calls with available agents based on a comparison of call characteristics and agent skills, with the goal of maximizing a "cost-utility" function ('253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶39).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes the technical problem of inefficiently matching callers to agents in a call center ('086 Patent, col. 4:36-62). The patented solution is a method that models this matching process as an auction, performing an "automated optimization" that considers both the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other callers ('086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 6 through 10 (Compl. ¶15, 21, 30, 39, 45). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement. The pleading makes conclusory allegations that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits that were not provided to the court (Compl. ¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50). Because no specific facts concerning the design or operation of the accused products are alleged in the complaint, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

• Based on the technology, a central point of contention for the ’420 and ’086 Patents will likely be factual and evidentiary: does the accused system perform an "automated optimization" that specifically calculates and considers both an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," as the claims require? The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's logic performs this claimed two-part economic function or a different, more conventional form of skill-based or cost-minimization routing.
• For the ’748, ’979, and ’253 Patents, a key question will be whether the accused system's routing logic can be technically characterized as "maximizing an aggregate utility" or performing a "multifactorial optimization" as those functions are described and claimed. The analysis will likely depend on evidence showing the precise algorithms and variables the accused system uses to make call routing decisions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

Context and Importance

• This phrase constitutes the central processing step of the ’420 Patent's asserted independent claim. The outcome of the case may turn on whether the defendant's routing algorithm performs an "optimization" that accounts for these two specific and distinct economic concepts. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether generic cost-based routing systems fall within the claim's scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the factors that can be included in the optimization in broad terms, stating that "a number of ways of scoring outcome of a call" exist and that "a number of parallel scoring systems may be employed" ('420 Patent, col. 21:30-34). This could support a construction that is not limited to a single, rigid formula.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of specific economic terms of art like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," as well as the patent's title referencing an "auction," could be used to argue that the claim is limited to systems that explicitly model the matching process as a formal economic auction, rather than general-purpose routing systems ('420 Patent, Title; Abstract).

"maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

• This is the core function performed by the processor in the ’748 Patent's asserted independent claim. Infringement will depend on whether the accused routing system's operations meet the definition of this term. The case may hinge on whether the defendant's system performs a mathematical maximization of a defined "utility" function or simply applies a set of heuristic rules.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the concept of "utility" in general terms, noting that in some cases "the outcome is irrelevant, and therefore productivity alone is the criterion" ('748 Patent, col. 24:30-32). This may support an argument that the term is not limited to a specific complex formula.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed formula for an optimization, which includes terms for agent cost, change in agent value, transaction value, and opportunity cost ('748 Patent, col. 24:51-54). This embodiment may be cited to argue that "maximizing an aggregate utility" requires a similarly complex, multi-factor calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, 33, 48). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least since the service of the complaint and claim charts (Compl. ¶25, 34, 49).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, it alleges "actual knowledge of infringement" based on the service of the complaint itself, which could support a claim for post-filing enhanced damages (Compl. ¶23, 32, 47).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: given the complaint's lack of factual detail, the case will depend entirely on evidence produced in discovery. A key question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually perform the specific, multi-factor economic optimizations required by the patent claims.
• A second core issue will be one of claim scope: can the functional limitations of the claims, such as performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus and an opportunity cost," be construed to cover potentially more generic routing systems, or are they limited to the specific auction-based and utility-maximizing models detailed in the patent specifications?