Patent Armory Inc v. Honeywell Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Honeywell International Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00327, E.D. Tex., 04/02/2025
• 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 infringes five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities, such as callers with call center agents.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses optimizing resource allocation in communications networks, particularly call centers, by using economic and utility-based models to route communications dynamically.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference 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 Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple first-come-first-served or longest-idle-agent routing systems. These static approaches fail to account for variations in agent skills or the specific needs of a caller, leading to suboptimal matches and inefficient use of of resources (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 2:38-51, col. 4:1-13).
• 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., an agent) as an economic optimization problem. It defines data profiles for both entities and performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making a skilled agent unavailable for future, potentially more valuable, interactions (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows for dynamic, context-aware routing decisions that go beyond simple skill matching (’420 Patent, col. 6:11-23).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a more sophisticated framework for resource allocation in communication networks by applying principles of auction theory and economic modeling to tasks like call routing, aiming for global optimization rather than simple sequential matching (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "one or more claims" and incorporating by reference an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶15; ¶17).
• Independent claim 1, which is representative of the patent's core technology, includes the following essential elements:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a first entity (representing inferential targeting parameters).
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities (representing characteristic parameters).
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of a second entity 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 Nov. 26, 2019)

Note: The complaint does not attach the ’748 Patent. This analysis is based on its title and the technological context provided by the related ’420 Patent.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '420 patent, this technology appears to address the technical challenge of efficiently routing communications (e.g., calls) to the most appropriate targets (e.g., agents) in a complex environment where targets possess varying skills and communications have different requirements or values (Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The patent, titled "Intelligent communication routing system and method," suggests a system that moves beyond static rules to intelligently route communications. This likely involves analyzing characteristics of the incoming communication and the available targets to determine an optimal pairing, potentially using cost-utility calculations or other predictive models (Compl. ¶10; '420 Patent, col. 5:49-61).
• Technical Importance: Such a system aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of communication hubs like call centers by ensuring that resources are allocated in a manner that maximizes overall utility or value, rather than merely following a fixed sequence (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to "one or more claims" and incorporating by reference an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶21; ¶26). Analysis of specific claim elements is therefore not possible.

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing" (Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a telephony control system designed to intelligently route calls. This technology addresses the problem of matching incoming calls with the most suitable agents in a call center by moving beyond simple queuing to consider other factors, likely related to agent skills and caller needs, to optimize the connection (Compl. ¶11).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims and references an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶30; ¶32).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but specifies the features in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶30; ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony Control System With Intelligent Call Routing" (Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a control system for telephony that employs intelligent call routing. The invention aims to solve inefficiencies in traditional call distribution by implementing a more sophisticated method for matching callers to agents, likely based on an analysis of call characteristics and agent capabilities to improve call center performance (Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims and references an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶36; ¶41).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but specifies the features in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶36; ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction" (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent covers a method and system for matching entities using an auction framework. This approach models the pairing of a communication source with a target as a competitive bidding process, where the optimal match is determined based on economic factors like value and opportunity cost, rather than static routing rules (Compl. ¶13).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims and references an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶45; ¶50).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but specifies the features in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶45; ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15). It does not provide specific product names or models.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products. Instead, it states that infringement allegations, including comparisons of patent claims to the accused products, are detailed in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which are incorporated by reference but were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶41, ¶50). The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendant has made, used, sold, and imported these products in the District (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the infringement theory for each patent is detailed in claim chart exhibits that were not provided. The narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶41, ¶50). Without the claim charts or a more detailed narrative theory, a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. The complaint's failure to name specific products or describe their operation raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that any Honeywell product performs the specific steps recited in the patent claims, such as conducting an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the scope of claim terms rooted in economic and auction theory. A key question for the court could be whether terms like "auction" and "opportunity cost" can be construed to read on the types of algorithms typically used in commercial call-routing software, which may perform more generalized cost-benefit analyses without formally modeling an auction or calculating opportunity costs as defined in the patent specifications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Note: As no specific claims are asserted, this analysis is based on representative independent claim 1 of the ’420 Patent.

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the invention's scope. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims cover conventional cost-based routing systems or are limited to systems that perform a more specific type of economic calculation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will be critical to establishing infringement against commercial call center products that weigh factors like agent cost and potential revenue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function for long term call center operation," which may suggest that "economic surplus" is not limited to direct monetary gain but can encompass broader concepts of utility (’420 Patent, col. 6:11-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title ("...matching entities in an auction") and abstract frame the invention in the specific context of an auction. This framing, along with embodiments describing bidding-like processes, could support a narrower construction tied to formal auction theory (’420 Patent, Title; Abstract).
• The Term: "opportunity cost of the unavailability"
  • Context and Importance: This term requires a specific, forward-looking calculation—the value lost by using a resource on one task instead of a future, potentially more valuable task. Infringement analysis will likely hinge on whether the accused systems perform this specific calculation. The complexity of this element may provide a key non-infringement argument if the accused products use simpler, immediate-value routing logic.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept in general terms, such as the preference to "assign more specialized agents to matters that they can handle, rather than assigning multitalented agents" (’420 Patent, col. 24:48-50), which could be argued to encompass any algorithm that reserves specialized resources.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A narrow construction would require proof that the accused system calculates a specific numerical value for the lost opportunity, a feature that may be absent from systems that use heuristics or priority queuing to manage specialized resources. The patent’s discussion of comparing cost functions for different pairings suggests a quantitative, rather than merely qualitative, assessment (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-67).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 Patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint states that unprovided exhibits extensively reference these materials (Compl. ¶24, ¶39, ¶48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 Patents, based solely on the service of the complaint and the attached (but unprovided) claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶38, ¶47). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the plaintiff, having filed a complaint that omits specific product names and infringement details, produce evidence demonstrating that an accused Honeywell system performs the complex, multi-part economic optimizations—including calculations of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"—required by the asserted patents?
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Will the court construe claim terms like "auction" and "economic surplus," which are derived from formal economic theory, broadly enough to cover the more generalized cost-utility algorithms potentially used in commercial call-routing products, or will it adopt a narrower construction that limits the claims to systems that explicitly model a competitive bidding environment?
• A third pivotal question relates to indirect infringement: To sustain its inducement claims, what specific instructions in Defendant's product literature will Plaintiff be able to identify that allegedly direct users to configure or operate the accused systems in a manner that practices every element of the patented methods?