Patent Armory Inc v. Infosys Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Infosys Limited (India)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00328, E.D. Tex., 04/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities, such as routing customers to call-center agents.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for optimizing resource allocation in telecommunications, particularly in call centers, by using multi-factor analysis to match incoming communications with the most appropriate available agent or resource.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a long and interrelated prosecution history, with the earliest priority date claimed being March 7, 2002. Several of the patents are continuations or divisionals of earlier applications in the family. U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent in the family.

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 inefficiencies of traditional call center routing systems, such as first-in-first-out call queuing, which can lead to mismatches between a caller’s needs and an agent's skills (the "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" problems) ('420 Patent, col. 4:1-34). These static systems fail to adapt to changing call volumes and mixes, reducing transactional throughput ('420 Patent, col. 5:1-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by treating the matching process as a real-time auction ('420 Patent, col. 23:42-45). The system defines multi-part profiles for both callers and agents and performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match based on maximizing an "economic surplus" while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential calls ('420 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to move beyond simple skill-based routing by incorporating economic and game-theory principles to optimize the overall efficiency of the call center ('420 Patent, col. 21:51-67).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to dynamic, optimization-based resource allocation, aiming to improve efficiency and outcomes in high-volume communication environments ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’420 Patent, identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, 17-18). The following analysis is based on Claim 1 as a representative independent claim.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (Method):
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a 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 at least one of the second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method"

Issued November 26, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’420 Patent, this invention addresses the problem of inefficiently routing communications in environments like call centers, where matching a source (caller) with an optimal target (agent) is critical for operational efficiency and successful outcomes (’748 Patent, col. 1:24-34, referencing parent case specification).
• The Patented Solution: The ’748 Patent claims a system, rather than a method, that performs intelligent routing by using economic principles. It comprises a processor and memory configured to represent both communication "sources" and "targets" with "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an optimal routing between sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility," which accounts for the respective predicted characteristics of both the source and the target (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:1-12, referencing parent case specification).
• Technical Importance: This system provides a framework for implementing a utility-maximizing approach to resource allocation, moving beyond simple queuing to a more sophisticated, economically-grounded decision-making process for routing (’748 Patent, col. 2:26-34, referencing parent case specification).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent, identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21, 26-27). The following analysis is based on Claim 1 as a representative independent claim.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System):
  • A memory storing instructions.
  • A processor configured by the instructions to:
    • Represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
    • Represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
    • Determine an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

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

Issued September 11, 2007.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the others, describes a telephony control system for intelligent call routing. It addresses the problem of matching callers with appropriately skilled agents in a call center by moving beyond simple queuing rules. The solution involves using a processor to determine an optimal agent selection based on a correspondence between a "call classification vector" (describing the call's needs) and a table of "agent characteristic vectors" (describing agent skills) ('253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶30, 32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony Control System With Intelligent Call Routing"

Issued April 4, 2006.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the '253 patent and discloses a similar communications management system. It claims a system with an input for receiving a communication's classification, a database of skill weights related to that classification, and a database of agent skill scores. A processor then computes an optimum agent selection based on this information and directly controls the routing of the call ('7023979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’7023979 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’7023979 Patent (Compl. ¶36, 41).

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

Issued September 27, 2016.

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the '420 patent, describes a method for matching entities by framing the process as an auction. It involves defining data profiles for a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) and multiple "second entities" (e.g., agents). An automated optimization is then performed to determine the best match, considering both 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" of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶45, 50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these unidentified products are identified in claim charts attached as exhibits, but the exhibits were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, 26, 32, 41, 50). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that compare the asserted patent claims to the accused products but does not include these exhibits (Compl. ¶18, 27, 33, 42, 51). The narrative infringement allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, 26). Without the exhibits, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the patents and the general nature of the allegations, several points of contention may arise.
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will concern the scope of claim terms rooted in economic and auction theory, such as "auction," "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility." A dispute may arise over whether Defendant's accused products—presumably IT or business process services—perform functions that can be properly characterized as conducting an "auction" or calculating "economic surplus" as those terms are understood in the context of the patents.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the specific multi-step optimization processes required by the claims. For example, for the ’420 Patent, Plaintiff would need to show that Defendant’s system performs an optimization that specifically accounts for both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," rather than a more generic multi-factor routing algorithm. For the ’748 Patent, Plaintiff would need to prove that the accused system determines routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility," which may require evidence of a specific type of calculation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus . . . and an opportunity cost" ('420 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This functional language is the core of Claim 1 of the '420 patent. The case may turn on whether this phrase requires a specific, two-part economic calculation as described in the specification, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other multi-factor decision-making processes in call routing. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to link the claim to a specific economic theory that may or may not be literally implemented in the accused systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process generally as optimizing a "cost-utility function" for call center operations, which could be argued to encompass various forms of multi-factor analysis beyond a strict calculation of surplus and opportunity cost ('420 Patent, col. 6:29-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed formula for an optimization that includes distinct terms for the value of the agent, the value of the transaction, and the opportunity cost, suggesting a specific multi-component calculation is contemplated ('420 Patent, col. 24:50-58). The use of specific economic terms like "surplus" and "opportunity cost" may support a narrower construction limited to systems that explicitly model these economic concepts.

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 1 of the '748 patent and defines the goal of the claimed routing system. The dispute will likely focus on what level of mathematical optimization is required to meet this limitation. The construction will be critical to determining whether a system that uses heuristics or scores to select a "best" match, without necessarily proving it is the mathematical maximum, infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family specification discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function" in general terms, which might suggest that any system designed to improve overall outcomes by weighing various factors could be seen as "maximizing" utility in a practical sense ('748 Patent, col. 23:20-24, referencing parent case).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "maximizing" implies finding the single best outcome from a set of possibilities. The patent abstract links this to determining an "optimal routing," which could support an interpretation requiring a system to perform a genuine mathematical maximization of a defined "aggregate utility" function, rather than merely selecting a preferred or high-scoring option from a list.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶24, 39, 48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748, ’7023979, and ’086 Patents, with knowledge based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶23, 38, 47). This forms a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the economic and auction-based terminology used in the patent claims, such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," be construed to cover the functions of Defendant's accused products, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed economic models and the technical operation of the accused systems?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: given the complaint's conclusory allegations and reliance on unprovided exhibits, what specific evidence can Plaintiff introduce to demonstrate that the accused systems actually perform the complex, multi-step optimization calculations and representations of "economic utility" required by the asserted claims?