Patent Armory Inc v. Charter Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Patent Armory Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc.
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Charter Communications, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00237, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to optimizing call center and telecommunication routing by applying economic principles, such as auctions and cost-benefit analysis, to match callers with agents or other resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit, licensing negotiations, or administrative patent challenges.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, which typically route calls based on simple rules like first-come-first-served, without intelligent or dynamic matching of callers to agents (’420 Patent, col. 2:42-53). This can lead to mismatches in skills, increased wait times, and inefficient use of call center resources (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as an economic auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). It defines parameters for each entity and performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the economic surplus of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:42-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to apply economic optimization principles to telecommunications routing, moving beyond static rules to a dynamic, value-based system for allocating resources in real time (’420 Patent, col. 18:10-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit, but does not specify claim numbers in its narrative (Compl. ¶15). The analysis below presumes Claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity from a plurality of second entities.
  • Defining multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for each of the second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization regarding an economic surplus of a match.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the matched second entity for 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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of optimizing call center operations beyond immediate efficiency by considering long-term factors and complex, abstract concepts that are difficult to quantify with traditional routing systems (’748 Patent, col. 27:10-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that determines an optimal routing by representing communications sources and targets using "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then seeks to maximize an "aggregate utility" across all potential source-target linkages, which can include factors like the value of agent training in addition to immediate call resolution efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 27:29-41, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The solution aims to create a more holistic and intelligent routing system that can balance short-term throughput with long-term strategic goals, such as improving agent skill sets and customer satisfaction (’748 Patent, col. 28:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify claim numbers in its narrative (Compl. ¶21). The analysis below presumes Claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing system and method.
  • Representing predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets.
  • This determination is based on maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics of the source-destination linkages.
• 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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for routing communications based on a "communications classification" (’979 Patent, Abstract). It uses a database of agent skill scores and a database of skill weights to compute an optimal agent selection for an incoming communication, with the processor directly controlling the routing (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for routing communications by receiving classification factors for concurrent communications and storing characteristics of potential targets (’253 Patent, Abstract). A "multifactorial optimization" is then performed to determine the optimal target for each communication, with the process being performed under the control of a single computer operating system (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" of infringement (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 patent, describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity selected from a plurality of alternatives (’086 Patent, Abstract). The matching is achieved through an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" of infringement (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not publicly filed, preventing a detailed claim-by-claim analysis. The narrative allegations state only that the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

’420 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Narrative Theory: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, or importing products identified in Exhibit 6, and by having its employees internally test and use these products (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The complaint provides no specific facts explaining how Defendant’s products allegedly perform the claimed method of matching entities in an auction.
• Identified Points of Contention: The complaint's lack of specificity raises the fundamental question of what facts support the allegation of infringement. A potential point of contention may be whether Defendant’s systems, in routing communications, perform an "automated optimization" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as those terms are understood in the context of the ’420 Patent, or whether they operate on different, non-economic technical principles.

’748 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Narrative Theory: Plaintiff alleges direct infringement by Defendant making, using, or selling products identified in Exhibit 7 (Compl. ¶21). The complaint provides no specific facts explaining how Defendant’s products allegedly use "economic utility" to determine an "optimal routing" that maximizes an "aggregate utility."
• Identified Points of Contention: A central question will be how the complaint maps the functions of Defendant’s products to the specific economic concepts claimed. Practitioners may question what evidence supports the allegation that Defendant’s systems calculate an "economic utility" for communications sources and targets or maximize an "aggregate utility," as opposed to routing calls based on technical criteria such as network availability, agent status, or predefined skill-based rules.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical because the dispute may turn on whether Defendant’s routing activities constitute this specific type of economic calculation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to claim a business or economic concept implemented by a technical system, raising questions about its proper scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process in general terms, such as balancing competing goals and making efficient use of call center resources, which could support a broader reading on any system that dynamically allocates resources based on multiple weighted factors (’420 Patent, col. 2:28-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links these concepts to specific economic models and auction theory, suggesting the claim may be limited to systems that explicitly calculate financial or quasi-financial surplus and opportunity costs, rather than merely balancing technical routing metrics (’420 Patent, col. 21:5-24). The patent’s title, "matching entities in an auction," may further support a narrower construction.

For the ’748 Patent

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the claimed optimization process. Infringement will depend on whether Defendant’s systems can be shown to perform this specific maximization function. The term’s definition will determine whether it covers conventional load-balancing and skill-based routing systems or is limited to more complex, economically-driven optimization.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses "utility" in broad terms, including factors like "caller satisfaction" and "training as a utility," which could argue for construing the term to cover any system that considers multiple, non-uniform objectives in routing (’748 Patent, col. 36:29-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract and detailed description consistently frame the invention in terms of "economic utility" and maximizing an "aggregate utility," suggesting a requirement for a specific type of global optimization across all communications that can be quantified in a common (likely economic) metric, potentially distinguishing it from systems that route calls individually based on local rules (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:10-24).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, Plaintiff alleges induced infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant selling the accused products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶24, 45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶¶23, 44). The sole basis alleged for this pre-suit knowledge is the service of the complaint itself, which is a post-suit event. This may suggest the primary basis for a willfulness claim will be continued alleged infringement after the complaint was filed.

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

• A central issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which relies entirely on incorporating unfiled exhibits and contains no specific factual allegations linking any accused product to any claim limitation, meet the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement?
• A key technical question will be one of definitional scope: can the economic and auction-based terminology of the patents, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," be construed to cover the technical operations of a large-scale telecommunications provider, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed economic models and the real-world functionality of the accused systems?