DCT

2:25-cv-00814

Patent Armory Inc v. Novo Nordisk AS

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Novo Nordisk A/S (Denmark)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00814, E.D. Tex., 08/19/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
Technical Context: The technology domain concerns optimizing resource allocation in communications systems, such as call centers, by using algorithms to match incoming requests with available resources based on skills and economic factors.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 – Earliest Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 – Earliest Priority Date
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 – Issue Date
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 – 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

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple "first-come-first-served" queuing, which can lead to mismatches between a caller's needs and an agent's abilities, resulting in problems with "under-skilled" and "over-skilled" agents (Compl. Ex. 1, ’979 Patent, col. 3:26-55).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that intelligently routes communications by classifying the communication, accessing databases of agent skills and skill weights, and using a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" that goes beyond simple queuing to consider factors like cost-utility functions (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows for a more dynamic and optimized matching of callers to agents based on a variety of criteria (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
Technical Importance: The described technology reflects a shift toward more sophisticated, data-driven resource management in call centers to improve efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but incorporates charts from an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶12, 14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s scope.
Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A communications management system comprising:
- an input for receiving a communications classification;
- a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification;
- a database of agent skill scores;
- a processor, for computing, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection, the processor directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’979 Patent: the inefficiencies of traditional call center agent allocation and the negative effects of static agent groupings (’086 Patent, col. 3:30-col. 4:6).
The Patented Solution: This patent reframes the matching problem in economic terms, describing a method that performs an "automated optimization" to match a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) from a plurality of available entities (’086 Patent, col. 15:10-33). The optimization considers not only the match itself but also the "economic surplus" of the match and the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
Technical Importance: This approach applies formal economic and auction theory concepts to the resource allocation problem, representing a more advanced optimization model than simple skill-based matching.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but incorporates charts from an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶18, 23). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s scope.
Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- A method for matching a first subset of entities with a second subset of entities, comprising:
- storing data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first subset;
- storing data representing characteristic parameters for each of the second entities;
- performing, via an automated processor, an optimization with respect to at least an economic surplus of a match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second subset for an alternate match; and
- outputting a signal in dependence on the optimization.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18).
Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14, 18, 23). However, these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint. The complaint provides no description of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are presented entirely through references to claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 23-24). The pleading itself contains no narrative description of how any specific feature of a Defendant product is alleged to meet any specific claim limitation. The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23).

Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint provides no factual basis for its infringement allegations beyond reference to unprovided exhibits, a primary point of contention will be what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant’s systems practice the claimed inventions. The nature of the accused products is currently unknown.
- Scope Questions: A fundamental question for the court will be whether the claims, which are described in the context of telecommunications call centers, can be read to cover the products and services of a pharmaceutical company like Patent Armory Inc v. Novo Nordisk AS.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’979 Patent, Claim 1: "optimum agent selection"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central functional step of the claim. The definition of "optimum" will be critical to determining whether a defendant's agent-routing system infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its system uses a simple, predetermined rules-based assignment rather than performing a calculation to find an "optimum" selection.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing for various goals, such as "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which may support a construction covering any process that selects an agent based on maximizing or minimizing a defined goal (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 and the accompanying description disclose optimizing a "cost-utility function" as the mechanism for selection (’979 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 308, 312). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of mathematical optimization.
Term from ’086 Patent, Claim 1: "optimization with respect to at least an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost"
- Context and Importance: These economic terms define the core of the claimed "auction" method and distinguish it from simple matching. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether Defendant's system can be shown to calculate or consider these specific economic principles.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent applies these concepts to the general problem of matching entities, which could support an argument that any system implicitly balancing the value of a match against the cost of forgoing other matches meets this limitation.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: "Economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" are terms of art in economic theory. The patent abstract makes these concepts central to the invention (’086 Patent, Abstract). This may support a narrower construction requiring the system to explicitly calculate or model these specific economic values, rather than merely making a generic best-fit selection.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The alleged basis is that Defendant 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).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that any infringement of the ’086 Patent is willful. The allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, stating that Defendant gained "actual knowledge of infringement" upon service of the complaint and has continued to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 20-22).

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

The analysis of this complaint is limited by its lack of specific factual allegations regarding the accused products. Based on the available documents, the case appears to center on the following key questions:

A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: can Plaintiff produce evidence that Defendant’s unspecified products—originating from a pharmaceutical company—perform the specific, multi-factor computational "optimization" described in patents directed to call center technology?
A key definitional question for the ’086 Patent will be one of scope: can the terms "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" be construed to cover general-purpose resource allocation, or do they require a system that performs an explicit, auction-like economic calculation that may not be present in Defendant's systems?