Patent Armory Inc v. Mooyah Franchising LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Mooyah Franchising LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00167, E.D. Tex., 03/09/2024
• 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’s business operations infringe patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to optimizing the assignment of tasks in a communications center, such as routing an incoming customer call to the most appropriate agent based on skills, cost, and other variables.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 is a continuation of the patent family that also produced U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, indicating a shared technical specification between the two patents.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued Apr. 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that route calls on a simple "first-come-first-served" basis. These inefficiencies arise from mismatches between callers and agents, such as routing a complex technical call to an "under-skilled agent" or a simple query to an "over-skilled agent," which reduces throughput and increases costs (’979 Patent, col. 3:26-4:39). The use of "static grouping" of agents further limits flexibility in responding to changing call patterns (’979 Patent, col. 4:56-6:12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by computing an "optimum agent selection." The system receives a classification of the incoming communication, accesses a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to select the best agent, directly controlling the routing of the call (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture integrates this "intelligent algorithm" at a low level within the voice channel switching system itself, rather than as a separate high-level process, to reduce latency and improve real-time performance (’979 Patent, col. 59:8-23; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from simple queuing to dynamic, multi-factor optimization for resource allocation in telecommunications, aiming to improve efficiency without requiring external high-level management for every routing decision (’979 Patent, col. 60:37-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claimed.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A communications control system having a common operating environment.
  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics.
  • A processor that determines an optimum agent for a call based on a "multivariate cost function" that compares at least three agents.
  • The processor also controls the call routing, with both the determination and routing functions performed within the "common operating environment."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” Issued Sep. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’979 Patent, the technology addresses the challenge of optimally matching entities in a communications system, such as callers with call center agents, where agents have varying skills and availabilities (’086 Patent, col. 3:32-4:40).
• The Patented Solution: The ’086 Patent frames the matching problem as an automated auction. The system defines "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity (e.g., a caller's needs) and "characteristic parameters" for a plurality of second entities (e.g., agents' skills) (’086 Patent, Abstract). An automated processor then performs an optimization to maximize the "economic surplus" of a potential match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:44-64:17).
• Technical Importance: This approach models the resource allocation problem using economic principles, aiming to maximize the global utility of the system rather than just finding the best-skilled agent for a single call in isolation (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-66:12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method claimed.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for matching a first subset of entities with a second subset.
  • Storing multivalued scalar data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for the first subset.
  • Storing multivalued scalar data representing "characteristic parameters" for the second subset.
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor with respect to an "economic surplus" of a match.
  • The optimization must also consider an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate first entity.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product by name. It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶12; Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific description of the accused products' functionality. Given that the Defendant is a restaurant franchise and the patents relate to call routing and auction-based matching, the accused instrumentality may relate to Defendant's customer service call center, online or mobile ordering platform, or a system for allocating opportunities among its franchisees. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes only conclusory allegations of infringement, stating that charts included as Exhibits 3 and 4 demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all claim elements (Compl. ¶14; Compl. ¶23). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The complaint body contains no narrative infringement theory or specific facts mapping accused product features to claim limitations. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’979 Patent may be whether Defendant’s system performs an optimization based on a "multivariate cost function," or if it uses simpler, rules-based logic. For the ’086 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s system can be characterized as performing an "auction" that calculates an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," terms that have specific meanings within the patent’s disclosure.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on evidence produced in discovery. A key technical question will be what specific data points Defendant’s system uses to match customers with service channels or franchise opportunities, and whether this process constitutes the multi-factor, real-time optimization required by the claims, as opposed to a more conventional allocation method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how specific claim terms may be disputed. However, based on the technology, certain terms are central to the scope of the asserted claims.

For the ’979 Patent:

• The Term: "common operating environment" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears to define the architectural locus of the invention. The patent distinguishes itself from prior art where intelligent processing was "externalized" from the low-level communications switch. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether a distributed system, such as a web server interacting with separate back-end services, falls within the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not require a single piece of hardware. Language describing the system as a "communications control system" could be argued to encompass logically integrated but physically distinct components (’979 Patent, col. 85:31-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a preferred embodiment where the host is a "PC server" with a "main processor" and "voice channel processor(s)" that share the "same message queue," suggesting a tightly integrated, single-machine architecture (’979 Patent, col. 59:60-60:34).

For the ’086 Patent:

• The Term: "optimization with respect to at least an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core of the claimed "auction" method. The infringement case will likely turn on whether the accused system's logic can be fairly characterized as calculating these specific economic metrics. Practitioners may focus on whether the system merely finds a "best fit" or if it performs a true economic optimization as described.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that "business goals" can include non-economic factors like "customer satisfaction," which must be "converted and normalized into economic terms." This could support arguing that any system optimizing a weighted score that includes such factors is performing the claimed step (’086 Patent, col. 65:36-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed mathematical formulas and descriptions of cost factors, such as agent salary, training costs, and anticipated transaction value, suggesting the claim requires a specific type of quantitative financial calculation, not just a qualitative scoring system (’086 Patent, col. 65:1-66:12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’086 Patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also alleges Defendant "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" after being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." For the ’086 Patent, it alleges that service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶20). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made for either patent-in-suit.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint is devoid of factual allegations, relying entirely on un-filed exhibits. A primary question for the court will be whether discovery uncovers technical evidence sufficient to map the actual operation of Defendant's systems onto the specific computational and algorithmic limitations recited in the patent claims.
• A key question will be one of definitional scope: Can the claims, which are described in the context of sophisticated, real-time management of human call center agents, be construed to cover the potentially simpler logic of a restaurant's online ordering platform or franchise management system? The case may turn on whether terms like "multivariate cost function" and "economic surplus" read on the accused systems.