Patent Armory Inc v. CBC Restaurant Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: CBC Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Corner Bakery Café (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01498, N.D. Tex., 06/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of of business within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer communication systems infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based matching for telecommunications systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of Computer Telephony Integration (CTI), focusing on optimizing the allocation of communication tasks (like customer calls) to available resources (like call center agents).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents originate from long-prosecuted families, with the earliest priority dates tracing back to provisional applications filed in 2002 and 2003.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of efficiently managing call centers, particularly the difficulty of moving beyond simple first-come-first-served logic to more sophisticated "skills-based routing" that matches a caller's needs with an agent's specific abilities (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-4:68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes treating the matching of an incoming communication (a "first entity") with an available agent (a "second entity") as a real-time auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system defines parameters for both the caller and the available agents and then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the best match but also the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for subsequent communications (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a framework for dynamically allocating communication resources based on economic principles, allowing for more complex and potentially more efficient routing decisions than traditional static rule sets (’420 Patent, col. 21:4-22:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims," but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing respective characteristic parameters for each of the plurality of second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems, which often use simplistic logic (e.g., longest-idle agent) and fail to account for nuanced business objectives like agent training or long-term operational efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 2:50-4:68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that routes communications by determining an optimal agent based on a multifactorial analysis. It uses a "communication classification vector" to characterize the incoming call and a database of "agent skill vectors" to characterize the agents. The processor then determines an "optimum agent selection" based on a "non-binary weighted correspondence" between these vectors, allowing for routing decisions based on factors beyond simple skill matching, such as long-term cost-utility or training goals (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system enables routing decisions to be aligned with broader, dynamic business strategies, such as prioritizing agent development during periods of low call volume, rather than being limited to maximizing immediate transactional throughput (’748 Patent, col. 27:8-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing system comprising an input, a memory, and a processor.
  • The input is configured to receive a communication classification vector.
  • The memory stores a database of a plurality of agent skill vectors.
  • The processor is configured to determine an optimum agent selection based on at least a non-binary weighted correspondence of the communication classification and the agent skills database, and control the routing of the communication accordingly.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the problem of inefficient call routing in telephony systems (Compl. ¶11). The patented solution involves a communications management system that receives a "communications classification," consults databases of "skill weights" and "agent skill scores," and uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" to control call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Defendant products" infringe the patent but does not specify which products or features (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses inefficient routing of communications to available targets (Compl. ¶12). The invention describes a method where communications are received, characteristics of at least three potential targets are stored, and an "optimum target" is determined through a "combinatorial optimization" based on the characteristics of both the communication and the potential targets (’253 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Defendant products" infringe the patent without further specification (Compl. ¶36).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent, from the same family as the ’420 Patent, addresses the problem of optimally matching entities in a communication system (Compl. ¶13). The solution involves defining parameters for a "first entity" and multiple "second entities" and performing an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for other matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that "Defendant products" infringe the patent without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶15). Given the defendant is Corner Bakery Café, the accused instrumentality is implicitly a customer service or order-taking system.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details regarding the technical functionality or operation of the accused systems. It makes only conclusory allegations that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The complaint also makes no allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused systems.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Based on the asserted patents and the nature of the defendant's business as a restaurant chain, a central issue may be one of definitional scope. For the ’420 and ’086 Patents, a key question will be whether a system for routing customer orders or inquiries can be characterized as an "auction" that performs an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus," as those terms are used in the patents. For the ’748, ’979, and ’253 Patents, a similar question arises as to whether the defendant's systems perform the claimed "combinatorial optimization" or use a "non-binary weighted correspondence," or if they employ simpler, conventional routing logic.
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely concern the actual functionality of the accused systems. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused instrumentality performs the specific, complex computational steps required by the claims, such as calculating "opportunity cost" or applying "skill weights" to "communication classification vectors"? The absence of any technical description of the accused systems in the complaint suggests this will be a key area of discovery and contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This phrase encapsulates the core of the claimed invention, distinguishing it from simple matching algorithms. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any goal-oriented routing or narrowly to require a specific, monetized calculation of surplus and opportunity cost.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the optimization may be for "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which could support a construction where "economic surplus" is not strictly financial (’420 Patent, col. 4:8-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of cost-utility functions that include factors like agent salary, training costs, and anticipated sales volume, suggesting that "economic surplus" requires a quantitative, multi-faceted financial calculation (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-67).

For the ’748 Patent

• The Term: "non-binary weighted correspondence"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed "intelligent" routing from conventional, rule-based systems that might operate on a binary (match/no-match) basis. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely hinge on whether the accused system uses a graduated, multi-valued weighting scheme as opposed to simple if/then logic.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's discussion of routing based on "high-level definitions, which are contextually interpreted" could support a view that any system considering multiple factors in a non-trivial way meets this limitation (’748 Patent, col. 18:14-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples in the specification, which describe normalizing disparate factors into a common "cost" metric for numerical analysis, suggest that "non-binary weighted correspondence" refers to a formal, multi-step computational process rather than a simple qualitative assessment (’748 Patent, col. 23:27-24:24).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The stated basis is that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶¶24, 45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the ’748 and ’086 Patents since at least the service of the complaint and corresponding claim charts, which may serve as a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement (Compl. ¶¶23, 44).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the sophisticated terminology of the patents-in-suit, such as "auction," "economic surplus," and "multifactorial optimization," developed in the context of complex call centers, be construed to read on the customer communication and ordering systems of a restaurant chain?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, the case will likely turn on what discovery reveals about how the accused systems actually function. Does the defendant's system perform the specific, multi-step computational processes required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented methods and the accused instrumentality’s real-world operation?