Patent Armory Inc v. GKD Gebr Kufferath AG

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: GKD - Gebr. Kufferath AG (Germany)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00812, E.D. Tex., 08/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based matching systems for call centers.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves sophisticated software for managing customer service call centers by dynamically matching incoming calls or other tasks with the most suitable service agents based on skills and economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	’979 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-07	’086 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

• Patent Identification: 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’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, where simple "first-come-first-served" routing fails to account for agents possessing different skills. This leads to problems such as routing a complex call to an "under-skilled agent" or a simple call to an "over-skilled agent," both of which reduce overall transactional throughput. (’979 Patent, col. 4:5-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that integrates intelligent routing functions at a low level of the system architecture. The system receives a classification for an incoming communication, consults a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" based on a "multivariate cost function." (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 59:8-23). By embedding this logic within the switching system itself, the patented solution aims to reduce the latency associated with consulting separate, high-level management software. (’979 Patent, col. 60:28-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from simple queuing to dynamic, data-driven resource allocation in call centers, designed to improve efficiency by more precisely matching specific caller needs with specific agent capabilities in near real-time. (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one independent claim. Claim 1 is an independent system claim.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A communications control system having a common operating environment.
  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics.
  • A processor that determines an optimum agent for a call based on a multivariate cost function that compares at least three agents.
  • The processor controls the routing of the call based on its determination.
  • The determining and routing functions are performed within the common operating environment.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶12).

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

• Patent Identification: 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 same call center inefficiencies as its parent, the ’979 Patent, but frames the resource allocation problem in economic terms. (’086 Patent, col. 2:21-30). Traditional systems that make the best available match for a single call fail to consider the global cost of that allocation. (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) using an automated auction model. The system performs an optimization that calculates not only the value of a potential match (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of that match—that is, the cost of making that agent unavailable for other potential, perhaps more valuable, calls. (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:55-64).
• Technical Importance: This method advances skill-based routing by introducing the economic principle of opportunity cost, allowing a call center to make globally optimized routing decisions rather than a series of locally optimized, but potentially globally inefficient, matches. (’086 Patent, col. 66:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one independent claim. Claim 1 is an independent method claim.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first set of entities (e.g., callers).
  • Storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for a second set of entities (e.g., agents).
  • Performing an optimization with an automated processor for a mutually exclusive match between the sets.
  • This optimization considers both the "economic surplus" of the match and the "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.
• The complaint refers to infringing "one or more claims" of the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. (Compl. ¶¶12, 14, 18, 23). These exhibits were not provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). Based on the patents, this suggests the products are systems or services, likely for call centers, that perform intelligent or auction-based routing to match incoming communications with service agents. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement based on claim charts included as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶14-15, 23-24). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

The narrative infringement theory for the ’979 Patent is that the Defendant’s products constitute a telephony control system that infringes by receiving call information, using a data structure of agent characteristics, and employing a processor within a common operating environment to determine an optimal agent based on a cost function and route the call accordingly. (Compl. ¶¶12-14; ’979 Patent, Claim 1).

The narrative infringement theory for the ’086 Patent is that the Defendant’s products infringe by performing a method of matching entities (e.g., callers and agents) using an automated optimization that accounts for both the direct value of a match ("economic surplus") and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches. (Compl. ¶¶18-19; ’086 Patent, Claim 1).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The analysis may raise a definitional question regarding the scope of "common operating environment" in the ’979 Patent. The dispute could center on whether the accused product's architecture for determining and routing calls is sufficiently integrated to meet this limitation, or if its functions are distributed across distinct systems.
• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question for the ’086 Patent will be what proof exists that the accused products' matching algorithm performs the specific economic calculations required by the claims, namely calculating an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." The complaint does not provide factual support to show that the accused functionality goes beyond a generic "best-fit" or skill-based matching algorithm.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "common operating environment" (’979 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required architecture of the infringing system. Its construction will determine how physically or logically integrated the "determining" and "routing" functions must be.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which may support an interpretation covering any set of software components that work together to perform the claimed functions, regardless of their location on one or more processors.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes the benefit of integrating intelligent control within the "low level" switching system to reduce latency and communications bandwidth, distinguishing it from systems where policy management is "performed in a separate computer system." (’979 Patent, col. 59:50-57, col. 60:28-34). This context suggests the term requires a more tightly coupled, and perhaps co-located, software and/or hardware architecture.

• The Term: "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the ’086 Patent’s claimed method. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system’s algorithm considers the value of foregone alternatives—the core of opportunity cost—or simply selects the best option from a present queue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific mathematical formula, which might allow for various algorithmic approaches that implicitly or explicitly weigh the value of keeping an agent available.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract defines the term in its conventional economic sense as "the unavailability of the... second entities for matching with an alternate first entity." (’086 Patent, Abstract). The specification further explains this by contrasting a narrow optimization for one matter with the cost of that agent being "more valuable for another matter." (’086 Patent, col. 65:42-51). This suggests the term requires an explicit calculation or estimation of the value of alternative, unrealized pairings.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶21). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date the complaint was served. (Compl. ¶22).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge" of the ’086 Patent from the service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶20). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, alleging that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶21).

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

This case appears to present two primary questions for the court, one turning on claim scope and the other on evidentiary proof.

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: does the term "common operating environment" in the ’979 Patent require the accused system's decision and routing logic to be integrated within a single low-level process or server, as suggested by the specification, or can it read on a more distributed architecture?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic function: what evidence can be produced to show that the accused product's matching algorithm performs the specific economic calculations of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" required by the ’086 Patent, as opposed to a more conventional skill-based or best-available-match routing method?