Patent Armory Inc v. ADT LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: ADT LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00821, E.D. Tex., 08/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s call center and customer service systems infringe patents related to intelligent, skill-based call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for improving the efficiency of call centers by moving beyond simple first-in, first-out call distribution to more sophisticated methods of matching a caller's needs with an agent's specific skills.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to 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
2025-08-20	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, Issued Apr. 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers that route calls on a simple "first-come-first-served" basis. This approach fails to account for agents having different skill sets, leading to problems 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 (’979 Patent, col. 4:27-56).

• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by selecting an "optimum agent" (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system receives a "communications classification" for an incoming call and compares it against a database of agent profiles and skill weights. A processor then computes the optimal agent selection and directly controls the routing of the call, seeking to optimize for variables like efficiency or cost (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3; Fig. 1).

• Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from simple queuing to dynamic, data-driven resource allocation in call centers, aiming to improve customer service quality and operational efficiency simultaneously.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’979 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative.

• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:

  • A communications control server system for handling real-time communications.
  • An input for receiving a call classification vector.
  • A table of agent characteristic vectors.
  • A processor for:
    • Determining an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence between the call classification vector and the table of agent characteristic vectors.
    • Controlling the call routing based on that determination.

• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same call center inefficiencies described in the ’979 Patent, focusing on the suboptimal matching of callers to agents in environments where agents have varied and specialized skills (’086 Patent, col. 2:50-col. 4:68).

• The Patented Solution: This invention frames the matching problem as an economic auction. It describes a method for performing an automated optimization to match a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent). The optimization is performed with respect to an "economic surplus" of the match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This approach quantifies the value and costs of a potential pairing using economic principles.

• Technical Importance: The invention applies economic modeling, specifically auction theory, to the technical problem of resource allocation in a communications network, allowing for more complex, value-based decision-making than simple skill-matching.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’086 Patent without specification (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative.

• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:

  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first subset of entities (e.g., callers).
  • Storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for a second subset of entities (e.g., agents).
  • Performing an optimization using an automated processor with respect to:
    • An "economic surplus" of a mutually exclusive match.
    • An "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for matching with an alternate first subset.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific ADT products, services, or systems by name (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. All such information is incorporated by reference to the unfiled exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 23-24).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations with sufficient technical detail for analysis. Instead, it incorporates by reference claim chart Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24). The pleading alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). Without the exhibits, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff provides to demonstrate that the accused ADT systems perform the specific multifactorial optimizations required by the claims. For the ’979 Patent, this includes computing an "optimum agent selection" based on weighted skills. For the ’086 Patent, this raises the question of whether ADT's systems calculate specific metrics corresponding to "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost."
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused systems, which presumably perform some form of call routing, fall within the specific scope of the patent claims. A key question for the court could be whether a system that performs generalized or heuristic-based agent matching meets the claim limitations requiring a specific "cost-utility function" optimization (’979 Patent, Fig. 1) or an "economic surplus" calculation (’086 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’979 Patent

• The Term: "optimum agent selection"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's distinction from prior art. The definition of "optimum" will be critical. A broad interpretation might cover any system that selects the "best" agent based on some criteria, while a narrower interpretation might require a specific calculation that balances multiple competing factors as described in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the selection as based on a "correspondence" between a call vector and agent vectors, which could suggest any form of matching process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the selection to optimizing a "cost-utility function" and balancing variables like "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," suggesting a specific, multi-factor computational process is required (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3; Fig. 1, step 308, 312).

’086 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: These terms of art from economics are the core of the asserted invention's novelty. The infringement case for the ’086 patent will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can show that the accused ADT systems calculate values that correspond to these specific economic concepts, rather than more generic routing metrics.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal mathematical definition for these terms in the specification, which may leave room for arguing that any system balancing direct benefits against the cost of resource allocation meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract explicitly ties the optimization to both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," indicating they are distinct and necessary components of the claimed method (’086 Patent, Abstract). The use of established economic terms suggests they should be given their ordinary meaning in that field, which would require a specific type of calculation beyond simple matching or cost minimization.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: While the term "willful" is not used, the complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement continues despite this knowledge, which could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶21). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Will the court construe terms like "optimum agent selection," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost" narrowly, requiring the specific computational and economic modeling described in the patents, or more broadly, potentially encompassing any system that performs intelligent, multi-factor call routing?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, the case will depend on what evidence Plaintiff can produce in discovery to show that ADT's internal systems actually perform the complex, multifactorial optimization processes required by the asserted claims, as opposed to more conventional or heuristic-based routing methods.