Patent Armory Inc v. Wingstop Restaurants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Wingstop Restaurants Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00170, 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.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and/or ordering systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching callers with agents.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing resource allocation in communications centers, such as call centers, by using economic and skill-based data to route incoming communications to the most appropriate target.
• 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. The asserted patents appear to fall into two distinct families, with four of the five patents claiming priority back to applications filed in 2002-2003.

Case Timeline

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 section describes the inefficiency of traditional call center management, which often results in mismatches between caller needs and agent skills (Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-50). Traditional "queue/team" and simple skill-based routing models can lead to "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" problems, reducing transactional throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system 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 (’420 Patent, col. 11:15-18). It defines "multivalued scalar data" for both the caller (representing "inferential targeting parameters") and the agent (representing "characteristic parameters") and then performs an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract). This allows for a more dynamic and economically efficient routing decision than simple skill matching.
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to dynamic, data-driven optimization that incorporates economic principles to manage call center resources (’420 Patent, col. 5:10-14, col. 6:7-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, but does not specify which ones, instead referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶15, 17-18). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Claim 1 of the '420 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • 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 characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities 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: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of optimally routing communications in an environment with multiple sources (e.g., callers) and multiple targets (e.g., agents), where a simple first-in, first-out or static routing rule may be inefficient (’748 Patent, col. 1:25-2:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system and method that represents both communication sources and targets by their "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an "optimal routing" between them by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to these predicted characteristics (’748 Patent, Abstract). This suggests a system that uses predictive modeling and economic principles to make routing decisions.
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve on basic skill-based routing by incorporating predictive analytics and a utility-maximization framework, allowing a communications system to make more sophisticated, forward-looking routing decisions (’748 Patent, col. 23:28-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶21, 26-27). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Claim 1 of the '748 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing method.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, based on its title, appears to relate to a control system for a telephone network that employs intelligent algorithms to route calls, likely based on caller information and agent availability or skills (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges it covers technology for practicing intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶¶30, 32).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringing the ’979 Patent but provides no details on their functionality (Compl. ¶30).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued September 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent shares its title with the ’979 Patent and likely covers related aspects of intelligent call routing within a telephony control system (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges it covers technology for practicing intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶¶36, 38).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringing the ’253 Patent but provides no details on their functionality (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," Issued September 27, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, like the ’420 Patent, appears to cover a system for matching entities, such as callers and agents, using an auction-based framework (Compl. ¶13). It likely involves defining characteristics for each party and using an optimization or bidding process to determine the best match (Compl. ¶¶42, 47).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringing the ’086 Patent but provides no details on their functionality, referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶42, 47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name or describe any specific Wingstop product, service, or system (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. The infringement allegations are detailed in claim chart exhibits that are referenced but not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). Given that the Defendant is a restaurant chain, the accused instrumentality may relate to its online ordering platform, mobile application, or customer service call center. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim chart Exhibits 6-10, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). The narrative allegations state that Defendant’s unspecified products practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary" claims asserted (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The complaint alleges direct infringement for all five patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The central point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. The complaint's lack of detail raises fundamental questions: What specific products or systems are accused? What is their architecture and how do they function to route customer communications? What evidence does Plaintiff possess that these systems perform the specific optimization and data-matching steps required by the claims?
  • Scope Questions: Assuming the accused systems involve routing customer orders or inquiries, a key legal question will concern the scope of the claim terms. For example, does Wingstop’s system perform an "automated optimization" with respect to an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as claimed in the ’420 Patent, or does it use a simpler, non-economic, rule-based logic for routing? Does the system use "predicted characteristics" to "maximize an aggregate utility" as claimed in the ’748 Patent, or does it react to currently available data without a predictive or utility-maximization framework?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent:

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: This phrase is the functional heart of Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent. Its construction will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff will need to prove that the accused system performs not just a routing function, but a specific type of economic calculation that considers both the direct value ("surplus") of a match and the indirect cost ("opportunity cost") of forgoing other matches.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in broad terms, stating the goal is to "optimally schedule agents for greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable" (’420 Patent, col. 4:8-10). This could support an argument that any algorithm aiming to balance competing routing goals satisfies this element.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for calculating utility and cost functions, including terms for anticipated changes in agent value, transaction value, and opportunity cost (’420 Patent, col. 24:50-67). A defendant may argue these specific formulas and economic concepts define and limit the scope of the claimed "optimization."

For the ’748 Patent:

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: This term from Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent defines the goal of the claimed routing determination. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused system performs a mathematical maximization of a "utility" function, or a less complex sorting or selection process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the system makes decisions to "appropriately direct the communication" based on a "high-level definition" which is "contextually interpreted," suggesting a flexible, goal-oriented process rather than a rigid calculation (’748 Patent, col. 18:11-21).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains "utility" in economic terms, such as "sales volume, profit, or the like" and notes that other goals like "customer satisfaction, must be converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization" (’748 Patent, col. 24:30-41). This may support a narrower construction requiring a system that quantifies and normalizes disparate factors into a single economic "utility" metric for maximization.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶25, 46). The basis for inducement is post-suit conduct, alleging that by continuing to sell the accused products and provide "product literature and website materials," Defendant knowingly induces its end users to infringe after having been served with the complaint and its claim charts (Compl. ¶¶24-25, 45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but lays the groundwork for such a claim by alleging "Actual Knowledge" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶23, 44). This alleges that any infringement after the filing date is done with knowledge of the patents.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of "What": The primary issue is the complete absence of factual detail in the complaint. The case cannot proceed until a fundamental question is answered: what specific Wingstop systems are accused of infringement, and what is the technical evidence of how they actually operate?
2. A Definitional Question of "How": A core legal issue will be one of algorithmic scope. Can abstract, economically-phrased claim terms like "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "maximizing an aggregate utility" be construed to cover the decision logic within a commercial restaurant's customer ordering or support system, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed economic modeling and the practical function of the accused systems?
3. A Pleading Sufficiency Question: The complaint's reliance on incorporating un-filed exhibits for all substantive infringement allegations raises the question of whether it meets the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal, which require factual allegations that make a claim for relief plausible on its face.