Patent Armory Inc v. Robert Bosch GmbH

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00972, E.D. Tex., 09/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing systems for call centers and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns advanced systems for managing telecommunications traffic, particularly in call centers, by using multi-factor analysis to route communications to an optimal agent or resource.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patents-in-suit. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings, is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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 describes the inefficiency of traditional call center Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems, which typically route calls using simple rules like first-come-first-served or to the longest-idle agent (ʼ979 Patent, col. 3:5-12). These methods are suboptimal when agents have varying skill sets, potentially leading to mismatches where under-skilled agents receive complex calls or over-skilled agents handle simple ones, reducing overall efficiency (ʼ979 Patent, col. 4:26-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating the intelligent routing logic directly into the low-level communications switching system (ʼ979 Patent, col. 59:8-23). Instead of relying on a predetermined address, the system uses a real-time algorithm to define the target of a communication, such as the optimal agent for a call (ʼ979 Patent, col. 59:12-20). This algorithm can perform a "cost-utility function" that considers not only agent skills but also factors like training opportunities to optimize for long-term call center operation, as depicted in the patent's flowchart (ʼ979 Patent, Fig. 1, element 312).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve call center performance by moving complex, multi-factor decision-making from a separate, high-level management system into the core switching architecture, thereby reducing latency and enabling more dynamic, sophisticated call routing (ʼ979 Patent, col. 60:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify the specific independent claim(s) it asserts, referring only to "exemplary method claims" and "Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" contained in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶14).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the asserted claims.

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: As a continuation of the family including the ’979 Patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem of optimally matching entities (e.g., a caller to a call center agent) in a resource-constrained environment where simple rule-based systems are inefficient (ʼ086 Patent, col. 2:21-3:2).
• The Patented Solution: The patent reframes the matching problem as an automated "auction" (ʼ086 Patent, Abstract). It discloses a method where both the "first entity" (the call) and the "second entities" (the agents) are defined by "multivalued scalar data" representing their respective characteristics (ʼ086 Patent, Abstract). An optimization is then performed that considers not only the direct quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" of that pairing and the "opportunity cost" of making that specific agent unavailable for other potential calls, thereby achieving a more globally optimal resource allocation (ʼ086 Patent, Abstract; col. 65:47-66:5).
• Technical Importance: This invention represents a more sophisticated economic model for resource allocation, moving beyond simple skill-based matching to incorporate concepts like opportunity cost, which is a critical factor for optimizing the efficiency of a complex system with many competing demands (ʼ086 Patent, col. 66:6-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify the specific independent claim(s) it asserts, referring only to "exemplary claims" and "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" contained in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶23).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the asserted claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products in its text, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the functionality or market context of the accused products.
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’979 and ’086 patents, stating that the products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). The specific factual basis for these allegations is contained in claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were incorporated by reference but not provided with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). Without these exhibits, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's conclusory allegations prevent a specific analysis. However, based on the patents, a potential dispute concerning the ’086 Patent may center on whether the accused system's functionality for matching callers and agents can be properly construed as performing an "auction" that calculates an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," as those terms are used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question for both patents will be whether the accused systems perform the specific multi-factor, cost-benefit optimizations described. The complaint provides no evidence to support how the accused products allegedly perform these claimed functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims or provide a factual basis for infringement that would allow for the identification of key claim terms likely to be in dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent, based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '086 Patent" (Compl. ¶21). The allegation of knowledge and intent appears to be based on Defendant's alleged conduct after being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: 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). It further alleges that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite this knowledge, which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶21).

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

The complaint's reliance on non-public exhibits for its core factual allegations limits detailed analysis. However, based on the patents-in-suit, the case raises several central questions for the court.

• A foundational issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: what specific products are accused, and what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that they practice the patented methods, given the complaint's lack of factual detail?
• A key legal and technical question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "auction", as used in the ’086 Patent in the context of matching entities based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," be construed to cover the functionality of Defendant's accused systems?
• An overarching question of technological correspondence will likely be central: do the accused products perform the specific, integrated, low-level cost-utility optimizations required by the claims of the patents-in-suit, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their architectural and functional operation?