DCT

2:23-cv-00466

Patent Armory Inc v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00466, E.D. Tex., 10/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's business operations infringe five patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to complex, automated systems for routing communications, such as in call centers, by performing optimizations to match incoming requests with available resources.
  • Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 is a continuation of an application which is a divisional of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, which is also asserted in this suit. This indicates a shared specification and a connected prosecution history between at least two of the asserted patents, which may raise questions of claim scope and potential prosecution history disclaimers applicable across the patent family.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Application filed leading to ’979 Patent
2003-03-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’420 and ’086 Patents
2006-03-23 Application filed leading to ’253 Patent
2006-04-03 Earliest Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2006-04-04 ’979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11 ’253 Patent Issued
2010-03-08 Application filed leading to ’086 Patent
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent Issued
2017-10-30 Application filed leading to ’748 Patent
2017-12-28 Application filed leading to ’420 Patent
2019-03-19 ’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 ’748 Patent Issued
2023-10-04 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 03/19/2019. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, p. 1).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as the "under-skilled agent problem" (routing calls to agents lacking necessary skills), the "over-skilled agent problem" (assigning highly skilled agents to simple tasks), and problems arising from "static grouping" of agents. (’420 Patent, col. 3:35-5:20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as an auction. The method performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the best match but also the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:50-22:4).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economically-driven model for optimizing resource allocation in real-time communication systems. (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’420 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶15, 17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention described in the patent.
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the matched second entity for an alternate first entity.

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 11/26/2019. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, p. 1).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’420 Patent, the background addresses the shortcomings of conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) systems in efficiently managing call center resources. (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-3:34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications control system that uses a processor to perform a "multifactorial optimization" for routing calls. The system receives "call classification information" (describing the call) and accesses a data structure of "agent characteristics" (describing available agents), then determines an optimal agent selection based on a "weighted correspondence" between the two. (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3; col. 37:58-38:26).
  • Technical Importance: The patent describes a system architecture that integrates intelligent, multi-factor decision-making directly into the low-level communications control process, rather than relying on a separate, high-level management system. (’748 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’748 Patent are asserted, referring instead to an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶21, 26). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system described.

  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:

    • A communications control system comprising an input, a data structure, and a processor.
    • The input receives call classification information comprising a plurality of classification characteristics.
    • The data structure represents a plurality of distinct agent characteristics for each of a plurality of agents.
    • The processor determines an optimum agent based on a multifactorial optimization of the weighted correspondence between the call's characteristics and the agent's characteristics.
    • The processor controls a concurrent call routing of a plurality of calls based on the determination.
      Multi-Patent Capsules

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued 04/04/2006. (Compl. ¶11).

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technology. The patent title suggests a system for intelligent call routing in telephony environments.

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶30, 35).

  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific accused features, referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶30).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued 09/11/2007. (Compl. ¶12).

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technology. The patent title suggests it is related to the ’979 Patent and concerns intelligent call routing.

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶39, 41).

  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific accused features, referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶39).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," Issued 09/27/2016. (Compl. ¶13).

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technology. The patent title and its family relationship to the ’420 Patent suggest it relates to methods for matching entities using an auction-based optimization model.

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶45, 50).

  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific accused features, referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in claim chart exhibits which were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶¶15, 17, 21). No specific products, methods, or services of Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. are named in the body of the complaint.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the relevant features, functionality, or market context of the accused instrumentalities.
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement through claim charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6 through 10, which were not provided with the complaint. The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50). Due to the absence of the claim charts and any specific factual allegations in the complaint's text, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be one of technological context: how does the patented technology, described in the context of sophisticated call centers and communication auctions, read on the specific business operations of a restaurant chain? The dispute may turn on whether terms like "auction," "agent," and "call center" can be interpreted to cover Defendant's customer service, online ordering, or franchise management systems.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether Defendant's accused systems actually perform the complex "automated optimization" required by the claims. For the ’420 Patent, this raises the question of what evidence will show that the system considers both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." For the ’748 Patent, this raises the question of what evidence will show a "multifactorial optimization" based on a "weighted correspondence" of vectors, as opposed to a simpler, rules-based routing system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" (from Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central functional step of the claimed method. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the required complexity and economic awareness of the accused process. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than simple "best-match" logic.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the balancing of competing goals in a general sense, which could support an argument that any automated process considering multiple economic-like factors meets the limitation. (’420 Patent, col. 2:28-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for calculating a cost function that includes factors for anticipated value, opportunity cost, and changes in agent value. (’420 Patent, col. 24:48-64). A defendant may argue these specific calculations define the scope of the required "optimization."

  • The Term: "multifactorial optimization" (from Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core intelligence of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether a simple rules-based system that considers more than one factor infringes, or if a more sophisticated, weighted, and integrated analysis is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description refers to performing a "multifactorial optimization to determine an optimum target for each of the plurality of concurrent communications based on the classification factors and the characteristics of the plurality of targets." (’748 Patent, col. 38:37-42). This general language could support a broad interpretation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the optimization to "call classification information" and "agent characteristics," which are described as vectors with weighted components. (’748 Patent, col. 37:58-38:26; Fig. 3). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of vector-based 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 and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents, with details purportedly provided in the unattached Exhibits 7, 8, and 10. (Compl. ¶¶24-25, 33-34, 48-49).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it establishes a basis for post-suit willfulness for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents. It alleges that service of the complaint and its associated (unprovided) claim charts constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 47).

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

  • A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, can the Plaintiff, through its referenced exhibits and discovery, produce concrete evidence that the Defendant's systems perform the specific, economically-aware "multifactorial optimization" required by the patents, rather than more conventional business logic?
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claims, rooted in the technical context of call centers and communication auctions, be construed to apply to the specific customer service, online ordering, or internal management systems of a barbecue restaurant chain? The outcome will likely depend on how the court maps the patent's technical lexicon onto the Defendant's real-world commercial operations.