DCT

2:24-cv-00026

Patent Armory Inc v. Great West Casualty Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00026, E.D. Tex., 01/19/2024
  • 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 allegedly committed acts of patent infringement 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 technology concerns systems for optimizing communications in call centers by intelligently routing calls to agents based on various economic and non-economic factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for '420, '979, '253, and '086 Patents
2006-04-03 Priority Date for '748 Patent
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issues
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issues
2024-01-19 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 Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in traditional call centers, which often use simple "first-come-first-served" or basic skills-based routing to connect inbound callers with available agents, leading to suboptimal matches and resource allocation (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) as an auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system performs an automated optimization based on "multivalued scalar data" representing the caller's needs and the agents' characteristics, considering factors like the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:35-6:1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows call centers to move beyond simple queuing to a dynamic, multi-factorial optimization model that can balance immediate service needs with long-term operational goals, such as training or maximizing profit per transaction (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "exemplary claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method”

(Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same call center management problems as the ’420 Patent, noting that traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems create problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, leading to inefficient use of resources (’748 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
  • The Patented solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing by maximizing an "aggregate utility" based on predicted characteristics of both the communication sources (callers) and targets (agents) (’748 Patent, Abstract). This system values factors such as training as a utility and can implement long-term optimization strategies beyond immediate call-handling efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 36:30-37).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for routing communications that explicitly values and normalizes disparate factors (e.g., agent cost, training utility, caller satisfaction) into a common cost-utility function, enabling a more holistic and strategic approach to call center management (’748 Patent, col. 24:1-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "exemplary claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶21, ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”

(Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that provides for skill-based routing of communications within a call center (’979 Patent, col. 18:40-45). It seeks to optimize the selection of an agent by considering both the characteristics of the incoming call and the skill profiles of available agents to resolve a destination based on an algorithm rather than a fixed target (’979 Patent, col. 18:8-21).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing”

(Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a communications control system for handling real-time communications by resolving a target based on an optimizing algorithm (’253 Patent, col. 32:63-68). The system determines an optimal agent by comparing a call classification vector against a table of agent characteristic vectors, enabling routing based on a multi-faceted correspondence rather than a simple rule (’253 Patent, col. 32:50-62).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction”

(Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for matching entities by defining their characteristics as multivalued scalar data and performing an automated optimization (’086 Patent, Abstract). The optimization considers both the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making an entity unavailable for an alternate match, framing the matching process as a type of auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50). These exhibits were not provided 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 alleges direct infringement of all five patents-in-suit and indirect infringement of the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶25, ¶30, ¶34, ¶39, ¶45, ¶49). However, the specific factual basis for these allegations is contained entirely within claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27, ¶35-36, ¶41-42, ¶50-51). As a result, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the complaint itself.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific points of contention regarding claim scope or technical operation. Without identification of the accused products, asserted claims, or the specific mapping between them, no substantive points of contention can be identified.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any asserted claims from the patents-in-suit. Therefore, it is not possible to identify key claim terms whose construction may be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant selling the accused products and distributing "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, ¶33, ¶48).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents, but bases this knowledge solely on "the service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶23, ¶32, ¶47). This constitutes an allegation of post-suit knowledge only.

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

The complaint as filed presents foundational questions of pleading sufficiency that will likely need to be addressed before any substantive technical or legal disputes can be resolved.

  • A primary question will be one of evidentiary basis: can the complaint’s infringement allegations survive a motion to dismiss when the entire factual predicate for infringement—the identification of the accused products, the asserted claims, and the element-by-element mapping—is incorporated by reference to external exhibits that were not filed with the court?
  • A related procedural issue will be one of notice: does a complaint that withholds the specific identity of the accused products and the asserted patent claims provide the defendant with adequate notice of the infringement allegations as required by federal pleading standards?