DCT

2:23-cv-00467

Patent Armory Inc v. Fuzzys Taco Opportunities LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00467, E.D. Tex., 10/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing, auction-based systems, and methods for matching entities in a telecommunications context.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses optimizing communications in environments like call centers by using algorithms to match callers with agents based on skills, costs, and other economic or non-economic factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Priority Date
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2006-04-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Priority Date
2006-04-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Priority Date
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issued
2023-10-04 Complaint Filing Date

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. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as the inequitable distribution of calls, static agent groupings, and the difficulty of matching callers with agents who have the appropriate skills without being over- or under-qualified for the task. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 3:35-4:34).
  • 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. This optimization considers not only the characteristics of the caller and the skills of the agent but also calculates an "economic surplus" for a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for dynamic, economically-driven routing in complex communications environments, moving beyond simple first-in-first-out queues to a more holistic optimization of resources. (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, including at least the "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶¶15, 17). For illustrative purposes, independent claim 1 requires:
    • 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 of the first entity with one of the second entities.
    • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of that second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” Issued November 26, 2019. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of optimally routing communications in a complex environment like a call center, where simple routing rules are inefficient. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 1:24-2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal path between sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by maximizing an "aggregate utility." This utility calculation is based on the predicted characteristics of both the source and the destination, which are represented as "linkages." (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides for intelligent routing at a low level within the communications architecture itself, allowing for real-time, contextually-interpreted decisions rather than relying on slower, high-level management software. (’748 Patent, col. 18:8-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, including at least the "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶¶21, 26). For illustrative purposes, independent claim 1 requires:
    • A plurality of communications channels for concurrently communicating with a plurality of entities, each having an economic utility.
    • A communications router for defining concurrent communications paths between sets of said entities.
    • The router determines an optimal routing between communications sources and targets.
    • The determination is made by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of the source and destination.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued April 4, 2006. (Compl. ¶11).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that addresses inefficiencies in traditional call centers by implementing intelligent routing. It proposes optimizing agent selection based on a cost-utility function that can account for factors like agent training needs and long-term call center operational goals, rather than just short-term metrics like wait time. (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-3:6).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, referencing an unattached exhibit for specifics. (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent but does not identify specific products or features. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued September 11, 2007. (Compl. ¶12).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a telephony control system that provides for intelligent call routing based on a cost-benefit optimization. The system evaluates pairings of requests (e.g., calls) with available partners (e.g., agents) using an evaluator that considers probabilistic, content-specific, or requestor-specific characteristics to generate a control signal for routing. (’253 Patent, col. 81:60-82:1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, referencing an unattached exhibit for specifics. (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent but does not identify specific products or features. (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," Issued September 27, 2016. (Compl. ¶13).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for "inferential targeting parameters" of a first entity and "characteristic parameters" of second entities. It then performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a second entity unavailable for other matches. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, referencing an unattached exhibit for specifics. (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent but does not identify specific products or features. (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6-10. (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. No specific products, methods, or services are named, and no description of their functionality or market context is provided in the pleading itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement. For each of the five patents-in-suit, the pleading alleges direct infringement but supports these allegations solely by incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not attached to the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27, 35-36, 41-42, 50-51). The complaint contains no narrative description of how any feature of any accused product maps to any specific claim limitation. Therefore, no claim chart summary can be constructed, and no specific points of technical or legal contention regarding infringement can be identified from the pleading.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint fails to identify specific asserted claims or provide a factual basis for infringement, an analysis of key claim terms is necessarily illustrative. Based on the representative independent claims of the lead patents analyzed in Section II, practitioners may focus on the following terms.

  • For the ’420 Patent (based on Claim 1):
    • The Term: "economic surplus"
    • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the optimization step of the claim. Its definition will be critical to determining whether an accused system that uses any form of scoring or cost-benefit analysis meets this limitation, or if the term requires a more specific, formal economic calculation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing with respect to various business goals, such as customer satisfaction or productivity, which could be construed broadly as forms of economic surplus. (’420 Patent, col. 24:30-40).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides formulas that include terms like agent cost, transaction value, and opportunity cost, suggesting "economic surplus" may require a specific, quantitative financial calculation rather than a qualitative assessment. (’420 Patent, col. 24:52-62).
  • For the ’748 Patent (based on Claim 1):
    • The Term: "aggregate utility"
    • Context and Importance: The claim requires the communications router to maximize an "aggregate utility." The scope of this term will likely be a key issue, particularly whether it can read on systems that optimize for individual connections sequentially versus a system that performs a global optimization across all concurrent communications.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes utility functions being maximized while costs are minimized, and states that "other types of optimizations may, of course, be applied," suggesting flexibility in what constitutes the utility. (’748 Patent, col. 36:25-30).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides an example of a combinatorial analysis of all possible agent-caller pairings to find a global maximum value, which could support a narrower construction requiring a holistic, system-wide calculation rather than a series of individual optimizations. (’748 Patent, col. 45:7-32).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. (Compl. ¶¶25, 34, 49). The basis for the required knowledge and intent is alleged to be the service of the complaint and its (unattached) claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 47). The complaint also alleges inducement based on the distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶24, 33, 48).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly contain a count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant gained actual knowledge of infringement "at least since being served by this Complaint" and continued its allegedly infringing activities thereafter, which may serve as a basis for a future willfulness claim. (Compl. ¶¶23-25, 32-34, 47-49).

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

Given the conclusory nature of the complaint, the initial phase of this case will likely focus on fundamental pleading and evidentiary issues before reaching technical disputes. The central questions are:

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: The case's viability depends on whether Plaintiff can produce the evidence—referenced in but absent from the complaint—that maps specific functionalities of Defendant’s products to the elements of the asserted patent claims. The current pleading provides no factual basis for the court or Defendant to assess the infringement allegations.
  • Definitional Scope: Assuming a factual basis is established, a core issue will be one of claim construction. Can the abstract, economically-rooted terms of the patents, such as "economic surplus" and "aggregate utility," be construed to cover the specific algorithms and routing logic used in Defendant’s real-world commercial systems?
  • Patent Eligibility: The abstract nature of the claims, which recite methods of optimization and data analysis, may raise the question of whether they are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or are merely abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer.