Patent Armory Inc v. General Nutrition Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: General Nutrition Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-1062, E.D. Tex., 12/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and communication systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to complex call-center management systems that use algorithms to optimize the routing of communications, moving beyond simple queuing to consider agent skills, call characteristics, and economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant administrative proceedings concerning the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 is subject to a terminal disclaimer over a parent patent, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. [10,237,420](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10237420) - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction"

(the "'420 Patent"). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center and auction systems. It notes that typical call distribution methods, such as first-come-first-served, can result in suboptimal pairings of callers with agents, leading to problems like "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agent assignments that reduce transactional throughput. (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., a call center agent) by defining descriptive data for each and then "performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of the match. (’420 Patent, Abstract). This solution moves beyond simple skill-based routing to a dynamic, economic cost-benefit analysis, as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1, which depicts optimizing a "cost-utility function" for call center operations. (’420 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:37-43).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for improving the operational efficiency of large-scale communication systems by applying principles of economic optimization to real-time entity matching. (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative and 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, comprising:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and
  • 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, and 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](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10491748) - "Intelligent communication routing system and method"

(the "'748 Patent"). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical field as the ’420 Patent, highlighting the limitations of conventional call centers that use static or simplistic routing rules, which fail to account for complex variables like agent skill levels, training needs, and overall business objectives. (’748 Patent, col. 1:24–col. 4:65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that represents both communication "sources" (e.g., callers) and "targets" (e.g., agents) using "predicted characteristics," each of which has an associated "economic utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" based on these characteristics. The specification explains this can involve optimizing a "cost-utility function for long term call center operation," which may factor in the utility of training an agent on a particular call. (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:37-43).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for embedding more sophisticated, utility-based decision-making directly into a communications routing system, allowing for more dynamic and business-aligned operations than was possible with prior art systems. (’748 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing method, comprising:
  • representing, in a memory, a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility;
  • representing, in the memory, a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility; and
  • determining, by a processor, an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination represented by linkages.

U.S. Patent No. [7,023,979](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/7023979) - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

(Compl. ¶11).

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system to improve upon conventional call center routing. The invention addresses the problem of inefficiently matching callers to agents by implementing a control system that performs an optimization based on a cost-utility function, taking into account variables such as agent skills and call center load. (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 1, l. 11-16).

Asserted Claims

Not specified in the complaint. (Compl. ¶30).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendant's products that perform intelligent call routing. (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. [7,269,253](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/7269253) - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

(Compl. ¶12).

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a telephony control system where communications are routed based on a combinatorial optimization. The system analyzes characteristics of incoming communications and available targets (e.g., agents) to determine an optimal match, moving beyond simple first-in, first-out queuing. (’253 Patent, Abstract; col. 1, l. 11-16).

Asserted Claims

Not specified in the complaint. (Compl. ¶36).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendant's products that utilize intelligent call routing functionalities. (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. [9,456,086](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9456086) - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction"

(Compl. ¶13).

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system for matching entities through an auction that considers both economic and non-economic factors. It is designed to find an optimal match by, for example, comparing a profile of a user of one communications channel (a caller) with a profile of a user of another channel (an agent) to resolve a non-economic optimal match, which can be perturbed by economic factors. (’086 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).

Asserted Claims

Not specified in the complaint. (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendant's products that match entities, such as customers with agents or services. (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim charts attached as exhibits. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶21). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant, General Nutrition Corporation, directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products. (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges infringement through internal use and testing by employees. (Compl. ¶16). Based on the nature of the asserted patents and the defendant, the accused instrumentalities are presumably customer service systems, call centers, or online platforms that route customer communications or match customers with agents or services. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific functionalities or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibits 6 through 10, which were not provided with the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The narrative theory of infringement is that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

’420 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products practice the claimed methods for matching entities, such as callers and agents, by performing an optimization that considers economic factors. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether Defendant's customer service systems perform an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" as recited in the claims. The analysis may turn on whether this requires a specific, monetized calculation or if it can be construed more broadly to cover general cost-benefit logic used in call routing.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant’s systems define and use "multivalued scalar data" representing "inferential targeting parameters" for customers and agents, as distinct from simpler, predefined routing rules based on issue type or agent availability?

’748 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s communication systems infringe by representing characteristics of sources and targets, each with an economic utility, and determining an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility." (Compl. ¶21, ¶24).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the construction of "economic utility." It raises the question of whether standard call center metrics like minimizing hold time or maximizing first-call resolution fall within the patent's definition, or if a more specific, quantitative utility calculation is required.
• Technical Questions: How does the complaint allege that Defendant's systems calculate and "maximize" an "aggregate utility"? The infringement analysis will require evidence of the specific operational logic of the accused systems, which is not detailed in the complaint.

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 functionality of the claimed method. Its construction is critical because it distinguishes the invention from conventional skill-based routing. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether a system must perform explicit economic calculations (a potentially narrow scope) or if it can cover more abstract cost-benefit trade-offs (a potentially broader scope).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function" that includes factors like "long term call center operation" and training utility, suggesting a scope beyond direct, immediate monetary calculations. (’420 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:37-43).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of specific economic terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" in the abstract and claims could support an argument that the optimization must be grounded in formal economic theory, requiring quantitative inputs and calculations. (’420 Patent, Abstract).

For the ’748 Patent

The Term

"maximizing an aggregate utility" (from Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is central to defining the claimed routing method. The case may turn on whether the accused systems perform an operation that can be characterized as "maximizing" a calculated "utility."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes utility in relation to achieving "business goals," which could include qualitative metrics like "customer satisfaction," potentially supporting a broader interpretation of the term. (’748 Patent, col. 24:37-40).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed multi-part formula for calculating an optimized outcome ("An=Max({[Acn1∑(rs1ans1)+Acn2]+Bcn}+Ccn)+Dcn)"), which could be used to argue that the claims require a specific and complex mathematical maximization, not just a general improvement in routing. (’748 Patent, col. 24:51-53).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶24, ¶45). Knowledge and intent for inducement are alleged to exist "at least since being served by this Complaint." (Compl. ¶25, ¶46).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on "[t]he service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts." (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility," which are rooted in complex optimization theory, be construed to cover the potentially simpler rule-based logic of a commercial entity’s customer service routing system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: in the absence of detailed factual allegations, what evidence can be produced to demonstrate that the accused systems actually perform the specific, multi-factorial, and dynamic optimizations required by the patent claims, as opposed to conventional methods of matching customers to agents based on issue type and availability?