Patent Armory Inc v. Evri Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Evri Limited (UK)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00810, E.D. Tex., 08/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing for telephony systems and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address technologies for optimizing resource allocation in communications centers, such as routing customer calls to the most appropriate agent or matching entities based on economic principles.
• 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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued April 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, which often use simple "first-come-first-served" call distribution ('979 Patent, col. 2:40-49). This approach can 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, reducing overall throughput ('979 Patent, col. 4:26-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that integrates intelligent routing directly into the low-level communications server ('979 Patent, col. 59:6-14). The system receives a classification for an incoming communication, computes an "optimum agent selection" by comparing the communication's needs against a database of agent skill scores and skill weights, and directly controls the routing of the call to that agent ('979 Patent, Abstract). This integration aims to reduce the latency and processing load associated with using separate, high-level management systems for routing decisions ('979 Patent, col. 60:36-41). A flowchart in the patent illustrates this process of identification, retrieval of profiles, and agent selection based on optimizing a cost-utility function ('979 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift toward embedding complex, real-time optimization logic within the core switching architecture of a communications system, rather than externalizing it, to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of large-scale call centers ('979 Patent, col. 60:30-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted from the ’979 Patent. It incorporates by reference claim charts from an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶14-15).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general problem of optimally matching entities where simple one-to-one criteria are insufficient ('086 Patent, col. 3:7-14). While rooted in the call center context of matching callers to agents, the problem is framed more broadly as a resource allocation challenge that can be modeled as an auction ('086 Patent, col. 37:50-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization ('086 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the direct compatibility of the entities, represented by "multivalued scalar data," but also broader economic factors such as the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making one entity unavailable for other potential matches ('086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:45-64:17). This allows for a more globally optimal allocation of resources rather than a series of locally optimal but globally inefficient pairings.
• Technical Importance: This technology advances beyond simple skill-based matching by incorporating principles of economic optimization, such as opportunity cost, into the automated routing and resource allocation process, aiming for greater global efficiency in complex systems ('086 Patent, col. 65:42-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted from the ’086 Patent. It incorporates by reference claim charts from an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶23-24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify the specific accused instrumentality. It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in exhibits not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶18).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that are not provided, precluding a detailed tabular analysis. The infringement theory is summarized below.

• ’979 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges direct infringement occurs through Defendant's employees internally testing and using these products (Compl. ¶13). The complaint asserts that the unattached Exhibit 3 contains charts demonstrating that these products "practice the technology claimed by the '979 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶14).
• ’086 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint makes similar allegations of direct infringement for the ’086 Patent through the sale and internal use of the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶18-19). The complaint asserts that the unattached Exhibit 4 contains charts demonstrating infringement of the "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶23).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint provides no details regarding the accused products' operation, a central point of contention will be establishing the specific architecture and functionality of the accused systems. The analysis will depend on evidence showing how these systems receive, process, and route communications or match entities.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise questions about whether the patents' claims, rooted in telephony and call center technology from the early 2000s, read on the specific technologies used in the accused products. For the ’086 Patent, a key question may be how abstract concepts like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" are defined in the claims and whether the accused systems perform optimizations that meet those definitions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted, precluding an analysis of key terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’086 Patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant sells the accused products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶21-22).
• Willful Infringement: For the ’086 Patent, the complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue for the initial stages of the case will be evidentiary. Can the plaintiff produce evidence to show that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" operate in a manner that practices the specific steps and limitations of the asserted patent claims, which themselves have not yet been identified in the pleadings?
2. Scope and Abstraction: The case may turn on questions of claim scope, particularly for the ’086 Patent. A central issue for claim construction will likely be the definition of economic and auction-based terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." The court will need to determine whether these terms have a sufficiently definite meaning in the context of the patent and whether the accused systems' optimization functions fall within that scope.
3. Technological Evolution: A key technical question will be whether the systems and methods described in the patents, which have priority dates from 2002 and 2003, can be construed to cover the potentially more modern, web-based, or AI-driven architectures of the accused products. The dispute may focus on whether there are fundamental mismatches in technical operation between the claimed inventions and the accused systems.