DCT

2:25-cv-00973

Patent Armory Inc v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00973, E.D. Tex., 09/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and having committed alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing for telephony systems and auction-based methods for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center management systems that move beyond simple queuing to optimize the assignment of incoming communications to agents based on skills, costs, and other factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege 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 - Earliest Priority Date
2003-03-07 ’979 Patent - Application Filing Date
2003-03-07 ’086 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2006-04-04 ’979 Patent - Issue Date
2010-03-08 ’086 Patent - Application Filing Date
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent - Issue Date
2025-09-23 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 the inefficiency of traditional call center routing. Methods like first-in-first-out (FIFO) or longest-idle-agent fail to account for agents’ varying skill levels, leading to problems such as routing a complex technical call to an untrained agent (the "under-skilled agent" problem) or assigning a simple inquiry to a highly trained specialist (the "over-skilled agent" problem) (’979 Patent, col. 4:25-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by computing an "optimum agent selection." It does this by receiving a "communications classification" for an incoming call and comparing it against a database of agent skill scores and skill weights to control the routing directly (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system is described as being capable of optimizing not just for short-term efficiency but also for long-term call center operations, which may include factors like agent training (’979 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 311-312).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from static, queue-based call distribution to dynamic, multi-factor optimization intended to improve both transactional throughput and resource utilization in complex call center environments (’979 Patent, col. 2:20-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify the specific independent claim(s) asserted for the ’979 Patent, instead incorporating them by reference to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶14-15).

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 extends the concept of intelligent routing by framing the matching problem in economic terms. Traditional systems do not adequately account for the "economic surplus" generated by an ideal match or the "opportunity cost" incurred when a highly skilled agent is assigned to a low-value task, making them unavailable for a more critical incoming task (’086 Patent, col. 51:46-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for matching entities (e.g., callers and agents) by performing an automated optimization that explicitly considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that assignment. This is achieved by defining and processing "multivalued scalar data" that represent inferential targeting and characteristic parameters for the entities involved (’086 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). The system conceptualizes this matching process as a real-time auction (’086 Patent, col. 52:22-30).
  • Technical Importance: This approach reframes call routing as a micro-economic auction, allowing for a more sophisticated optimization that balances not only skills but also competing economic variables across the entire system.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify the specific independent claim(s) asserted for the ’086 Patent, instead incorporating them by reference to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶23-24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶12, ¶18). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in external exhibits that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶14, ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint provides no technical description of the accused instrumentality's functionality or its market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14, ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the ’979 Patent and both direct and indirect infringement of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶12, ¶18, ¶22). However, it does not provide claim charts or any substantive technical comparison between the asserted patent claims and the accused products. Instead, it incorporates claim charts by reference to Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: As the complaint lacks any description of how the accused systems operate, a central question for discovery will be to determine the actual mechanism by which Defendant's systems route customer communications. Specifically, what data points are collected about an incoming call, what agent attributes are tracked, and what logic or algorithm is used to match the two?
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the patent claims. For the ’979 Patent, a key question is what level of computational analysis is required to constitute an "optimum agent selection." For the ’086 Patent, a central issue will be whether the accused system's routing logic can be characterized as performing an "auction" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," or if it employs a simpler, non-economic model that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the specific asserted claims are not identified, this analysis focuses on terms from the patents' abstracts and summaries that are likely to be central to the dispute.

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979:

    • The Term: "optimum agent selection"
    • Context and Importance: This term likely defines the core output of a claimed method or system. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the accused system's method for choosing an agent meets the definition of "optimum." Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from simpler "best available" or skills-based routing systems.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating that the goal is to "optimally schedule agents for greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable" (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3), which could support a construction where "optimum" is relative to a chosen business goal.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow chart in Figure 1 details a process of optimizing a "cost-utility function" over both short and long terms (’979 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 308, 312). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of multi-factor computational optimization.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086:

    • The Term: "economic surplus"
    • Context and Importance: This term introduces a specific economic principle into the patent's claims. Infringement of the ’086 Patent may hinge on whether the accused system's optimization algorithm calculates a value that can be properly characterized as an "economic surplus."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent is a continuation of the family that includes the ’979 Patent, which uses the broader term "cost-utility function" (’086 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 308, 312). Plaintiff may argue that "economic surplus" should be interpreted in this broader context of general economic benefit.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract explicitly frames the matching process as an "auction" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent, Abstract). This suggests the terms should be construed according to their more specific meanings in economic and auction theory, potentially narrowing the scope of the claims.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The factual basis alleged is that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶21). Knowledge is alleged to have been established "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges that Defendant continues to infringe the ’086 Patent despite having "actual knowledge of infringement" from the service of the complaint and its attached charts (Compl. ¶20-21). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement. The prayer for relief also requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶H.i).

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

Given the limited factual detail provided, the case appears poised to revolve around two fundamental issues for the court to resolve:

  1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What facts will discovery reveal about the technical operation of Defendant’s allegedly infringing systems? The complaint's conclusory allegations will require substantial factual support to demonstrate that Defendant's commercial call-routing systems perform the specific, multi-factor computational processes claimed in the patents.

  2. A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can terms central to the patents, such as "optimum agent selection" and "economic surplus", be construed broadly enough to encompass the functionalities of a commercial customer service platform, or are they limited by the specification to the specific, complex economic and auction-based models described?