Patent Armory Inc v. Optimax Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Optimax Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01063, E.D. Tex., 12/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's communications routing products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to automated call distribution (ACD) systems used in call centers to route communications based on sophisticated, multi-factor optimization algorithms.
• 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.

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 describes the technical challenge of efficiently managing call centers, where traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems often lead to mismatches, such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" who cannot handle the transaction or an "over-skilled agent" whose expertise is wasted on a simple query (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-34). These inefficiencies reduce transactional throughput and increase operational costs (’420 Patent, col. 3:26-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching entities (e.g., a caller and a call center agent) through an "automated optimization" that functions like an auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). Instead of simple skill-based matching, the system calculates an "economic surplus" for a potential match and considers the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches, thereby seeking a globally optimal routing decision rather than a locally sufficient one (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, economic model-based system designed to maximize overall call center utility and efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary method claims of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • 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 respective 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, 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.
• 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", issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional computer telephony integrated (CTI) systems where intelligent routing logic is typically handled by high-level, external software, creating communication latencies and architectural complexity (’748 Patent, col. 2:1-24). This separation prevents real-time, contextually-aware routing decisions at the core of the communications switch.
• The Patented Solution: The invention integrates the intelligent routing algorithm into a low-level communications server system, allowing it to perform a "multifactorial optimization" to determine the optimal agent for a call in near real-time (’748 Patent, col. 18:56-65). This architecture resolves a target based on a holistic evaluation of weighted characteristics of both the communication and the available agents, rather than a simple, predetermined rule (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This integrated architecture enables more dynamic and responsive call routing by moving the optimization intelligence closer to the switching hardware, reducing system latency and transactional load on external management systems (’748 Patent, col. 25:47-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A communications routing system for concurrently routing a plurality of communications,
  • comprising a communications router configured to receive a communication classification for each communication,
  • a data structure representing distinct agent characteristics for a plurality of agents, and
  • a processor for determining an optimum agent based on a multifactorial optimization of (a) a non-binary weighted correspondence of the communication's classification characteristics and (b) the agent characteristics, and
  • controlling the routing of the communications in dependence on the determination.
• 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", issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an intelligent call routing system for a telephony control system. The invention focuses on optimizing call center operations by using a cost-utility function to select an appropriate agent, considering factors such as agent skills, training needs, and overall call center efficiency.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, similar to the ’979 Patent, discloses a system for intelligent call routing within a telephony control system. It details a method for optimizing agent selection through a combinatorial analysis that can account for various factors, aiming to improve metrics such as wait time and customer satisfaction.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for matching entities, such as callers and agents, using an auction-based framework. The system performs an optimization based on economic factors, such as the value of a match, and non-economic factors, such as the optimality of matching profiles, to determine how to route communications.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" in chart-based exhibits that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Consequently, the complaint itself does not contain sufficient detail to analyze the specific functionality of the accused products or their market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products directly infringe the patents-in-suit and incorporates by reference claim charts contained in Exhibits 6 through 10, which were not provided (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint does not contain a narrative description of infringement sufficient to construct a claim chart summary.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Based on the abstract nature of the claim terms, a central point of contention may be whether Defendant's products perform functions that fall within the scope of terms like "automated optimization," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost" as defined in the ’420 Patent, or a "multifactorial optimization" based on a "non-binary weighted correspondence" as required by the ’748 Patent. The dispute may focus on whether the accused routing decisions are based on the specific economic and auction-based principles claimed, or on more conventional skill-based or rule-based logic.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products actually execute the specific optimization processes claimed. For instance, the analysis may examine whether the accused system merely selects the highest-skilled available agent (a common industry practice) or if it performs the claimed, more complex calculation of balancing a match's value against the opportunity cost of forgoing other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’420 Patent:

  • The Term: "economic surplus"
  • Context and Importance: This term is not a standard term of art in call routing and appears central to distinguishing the invention from prior art skill-based matching. Its definition will determine whether the accused system must perform a specific financial or utility calculation, or if any efficiency-based routing metric qualifies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to limit "economic surplus" to a purely monetary value, suggesting it could be construed more broadly to encompass any calculated measure of utility or benefit derived from a match (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of a "cost-utility function" and various cost factors (e.g., agent salary, training cost) may support an interpretation requiring a more concrete, quantifiable economic calculation rather than a generic efficiency score (’420 Patent, col. 23:21-24:14).

• For the ’748 Patent:

  • The Term: "multifactorial optimization"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the complexity of the calculation required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a simultaneous, integrated optimization of multiple, distinct factors, or if it could read on a simpler, sequential application of routing rules.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires optimization of "at least" a weighted correspondence of characteristics, suggesting the process is inherently complex and considers multiple inputs simultaneously, not just a single "best skill" match (’748 Patent, col. 38:8-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments described in the specification, such as the flowchart in Figure 1, break the process into discrete steps (e.g., "retrieve agent profiles," "optimize cost-utility function"), which could be argued to support a less integrated or simultaneous interpretation of the optimization process (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint and the attached claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This suggests the allegations of willfulness are based on post-suit conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the abstract, economics-derived terms of the asserted claims, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "multifactorial optimization," be construed to cover the specific routing algorithms implemented in the accused products? The case may turn on whether these terms require the specific auction-like or complex cost-benefit calculations described in the patents or can encompass more conventional, albeit sophisticated, skill-based routing methods.
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given that the complaint defers all technical infringement details to unprovided exhibits, a central question will be what factual evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendant’s products actually perform the specific, multi-step optimization and matching processes recited in the independent claims, as opposed to functionally similar but technically distinct routing operations.