DCT

2:24-cv-00030

Patent Armory Inc v. Yum Brands Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00030, E.D. Tex., 01/19/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business operations infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities, such as routing customers to call center agents.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications networks, particularly in complex call center environments, by using economic and utility-based models to make routing decisions.
  • Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Earliest Priority Date ('420, '979, '086 Patents)
2006-04-03 Earliest Priority Date ('748 Patent)
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2006-03-23 Earliest Priority Date ('253 Patent)
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 March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, such as the "under-skilled agent," "over-skilled agent," and "static grouping" problems that arise from rigid call distribution systems. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-52). These issues reduce a call center's transactional throughput and lead to inefficient use of personnel. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by performing an automated, multifactorial optimization. (’420 Patent, col. 18:38-41; Fig. 4). The system analyzes various parameters of both the call and the available agents and calculates an optimal match based not only on skill but also on concepts of "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to a call, thereby making that agent unavailable for other potential calls. (’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond simple "longest-idle" or static skill-based routing to a dynamic, economic model that seeks to maximize the overall value and efficiency of the call center's operations in real time. (’420 Patent, col. 24:41-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not specify which ones, instead referring to charts in an unfiled exhibit. (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities.
    • Performing, using an automated processor, 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.

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

Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the same call center inefficiencies described in the related ’420 Patent, including the difficulty of optimally routing calls in an environment where agents have varying skill sets and costs. (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-4:52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that models both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) as having an "economic utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system's processor determines an optimal routing path between sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility" for all connections, considering the respective characteristics of each. (’748 Patent, Abstract; ’420 Patent, Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This system-level invention provides a framework for making intelligent routing decisions based on a global optimization of economic value, rather than on a series of isolated, rule-based decisions for individual calls. (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but refers to an unfiled exhibit for specifics. (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A communications routing system with a processor and memory.
    • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
    • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
    • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.

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

Issued April 4, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the patents above, describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It discloses a system that receives a communication classification, computes an optimal agent selection based on a database of skill weights and agent skill scores, and directly controls the routing of the call. (’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to an unfiled exhibit. (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')." (Compl. ¶30).

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

Issued September 11, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a similar communications system and method for intelligent call routing. The invention involves receiving communications with associated classification information, storing characteristics of potential targets, and determining an optimum target for each communication through a combinatorial optimization that considers a cost-benefit analysis. (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to an unfiled exhibit. (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')." (Compl. ¶39).

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

Issued September 27, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’420 Patent, this patent describes a method for matching entities by defining targeting and characteristic parameters for each. It then performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for an alternative match. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to an unfiled exhibit. (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')." (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific product, method, or service by name. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not describe the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts attached as exhibits. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Consequently, the complaint provides no specific factual allegations regarding how any YUM! Brands product or service operates.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within referenced exhibits that were not provided with the public filing. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 35-36, 41-42, 50-51). The complaint asserts that these exhibits contain charts comparing the exemplary claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrating that all claim elements are satisfied. (Compl. ¶17). Without these exhibits, a direct analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The primary point of contention is the absence of factual allegations in the complaint itself. A key question for the court will be whether the complaint, which relies entirely on unfiled exhibits to identify the accused products and provide the basis for infringement, meets federal pleading standards.
    • Scope Questions: Assuming the accused instrumentalities relate to YUM! Brands' customer service or ordering systems, a potential dispute may arise over whether those systems perform the sophisticated "optimization," "auction," and "economic utility" calculations required by the claims. A question for the court may be whether the term "auction," as defined in the context of the patents, can be construed to cover the routing of customer inquiries at a quick-service restaurant company.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "economic surplus"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of the ’420 and ’086 Patents. Its definition is central to the infringement analysis, as it defines the specific type of optimization the claimed method must perform. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a conventional cost-minimization or efficiency-based routing system falls within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide specific arguments for interpretation. However, a party might argue that the specification's broad discussion of balancing competing goals like customer service quality and resource efficiency supports a general interpretation not strictly limited to monetary calculations. (’420 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for calculating value, including terms for agent cost, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost, suggesting "economic surplus" requires a specific, quantitative financial calculation. (’420 Patent, col. 23:23-24:67).

  • The Term: "aggregate utility"

    • Context and Importance: This term is a key limitation in independent claim 1 of the ’748 Patent, which requires "maximizing an aggregate utility." The definition of this term will be critical to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art systems that may optimize for a single call but do not necessarily maximize utility across the entire system.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could point to language describing "business goals, such as customer satisfaction" being "converted and normalized into economic terms" as evidence that "utility" is a broad concept encompassing non-monetary factors. (’420 Patent, col. 24:36-40).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where disparate factors are "normalized into a common metric, 'cost', which is then subject to numeric analysis." (’420 Patent, col. 24:19-22). This suggests "utility" must be quantifiable in a consistent, likely financial, metric to be aggregated and maximized.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations state that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 33, 48). The basis for knowledge and intent is alleged to arise "at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts." (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" and that Defendant's infringement has continued despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 47). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness.

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

  • A central threshold issue will be one of procedural sufficiency: Does a complaint that omits all factual basis for its infringement claims—including the identity of the accused products and the manner of infringement—and relies exclusively on unfiled exhibits satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, particularly in light of the standards set by Twombly and Iqbal?
  • A core substantive issue will be one of technical applicability: Can the patents' claims, which describe sophisticated, economically-driven auction and optimization systems for resource allocation in complex communications environments, be construed to read on the customer interaction and support systems used by a global quick-service restaurant operator like YUM! Brands?
  • A key claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: The dispute will likely focus on whether abstract terms such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility" require specific, quantitative financial calculations as detailed in the patent specifications, or if they can be interpreted more broadly to cover general-purpose efficiency and load-balancing functions.