Patent Armory Inc v. Which Wich Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Which Wich, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01502, N.D. Tex., 06/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and systems for matching entities in an auction.
• Technical Context: The patents generally relate to technologies for optimizing communications in call centers, dynamically routing incoming communications to the most appropriate agent based on skills, costs, and other factors.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	Earliest Priority Date for ’979 and ’253 Patents
2003-03-07	Earliest Priority Date for ’420 and ’086 Patents
2006-04-03	Earliest Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11	’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19	’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26	’748 Patent Issued
2024-06-17	Complaint Filed

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 challenges of managing call centers to balance high-quality customer service with the efficient use of resources (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Traditional systems, such as those using a first-come-first-served basis for routing calls, are described as inefficient, particularly when agents possess varying skills (’420 Patent, col. 2:42-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by performing an automated optimization (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers inferential targeting parameters for the caller and characteristic parameters for the agents to maximize an "economic surplus" while also accounting for the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-13). Figure 1 illustrates a logic flow for routing calls based on factors like call center capacity and optimizing a cost-utility function (’420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move beyond simple queuing to a more dynamic, multifactorial optimization for allocating communication resources in real-time (’420 Patent, col. 18:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying which are asserted (Compl. ¶15). For analytical purposes, representative independent Claim 1 is examined here.
• Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent includes these essential elements:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a first entity (inferential targeting parameters).
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities (characteristic parameters).
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match between the first entity and at least one of the second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the matched second entity for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the background addresses the technical challenge of efficiently managing call centers, noting that complex processes are typically "externalized" from the core communications switch, which can create delays and inefficiencies (’748 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that represents predicted characteristics for both communication "sources" and "targets," each having an economic utility (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system determines an optimal routing between them by maximizing an "aggregate utility" based on these predicted characteristics (’748 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes this as integrating intelligent evaluation into the low-level communications management system itself, rather than relying on a separate high-level system (’748 Patent, col. 18:55-62).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide more intelligent and responsive call routing by performing complex optimizations at a lower level of the communications architecture, reducing latency and transactional load on external management systems (’748 Patent, col. 25:47-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying which are asserted (Compl. ¶21). For analytical purposes, representative independent Claim 1 is examined here.
• Claim 1 of the ’748 Patent includes these essential elements:
  • Receiving a communication for routing to a selected one of a plurality of human agents.
  • Determining at least one respective skill requirement of the communication.
  • Accessing a stored skill profile for each of the plurality of human agents.
  • Performing a multifactorial cost-optimization of a match between the communication and one of the agents, based on the skill requirement and the skill profiles.
  • Routing the communication to the agent selected based on the cost-optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 Apr. 4, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system that receives a communication classification, accesses a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an optimum agent selection, directly controlling the routing of the communication (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system is intended to provide intelligent routing within the telephony control system itself (’979 Patent, col. 2:5-13).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶30). The patent contains independent claims 1 and 17.
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which product features are accused of infringing this patent in the complaint body (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued Sep. 11, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a communications system where characteristics of communications and potential targets (e.g., agents) are stored, and an optimal target is determined in a combinatorial optimization (’253 Patent, Abstract). The optimization considers a cost-benefit analysis and the predicted availability of a target (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶36). The patent contains independent claims 1 and 21.
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which product features are accused of infringing this patent in the complaint body (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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 Sep. 27, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity by defining multivalued scalar data representing their respective parameters and performing an automated optimization (’086 Patent, Abstract). The optimization is performed with respect to an economic surplus of a match and the opportunity cost of making the second entity unavailable for other matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶42). The patent contains independent claims 1 and 20.
• Accused Features: The complaint does not specify which product features are accused of infringing this patent in the complaint body (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 1-50). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states that these are identified in claim-chart exhibits attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). These exhibits were not provided.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe the patents-in-suit, incorporating by reference claim charts in exhibits that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶18, ¶26, ¶27, ¶32, ¶33, ¶38, ¶39, ¶47, ¶48). The complaint does not contain a narrative description of the alleged infringement, preventing a summary of the Plaintiff's infringement theory. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patents, which are described in the context of complex telecommunications and call center management systems, can be read to cover the business operations of a fast-casual restaurant chain. For example, a potential point of contention for the ’420 Patent will be whether Defendant’s customer interaction systems (e.g., an online ordering platform or customer service line) perform an "auction" to achieve an "automated optimization" as those terms are used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products or the infringement theory, it is not possible to identify specific technical questions. A general question will be what evidence Plaintiff can marshal to demonstrate that Defendant’s systems practice the specific optimization, cost-utility, and matching functions required by the asserted patents, as opposed to conventional business logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The following analysis is based on representative claims from the ’420 and ’748 Patents, as the complaint does not specify any asserted claims.

• The Term: "auction" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The applicability of the ’420 and ’086 Patents may depend on whether Defendant's systems can be characterized as performing an "auction." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether the claims can be applied outside the specific context of bidding for goods or services and to more general resource allocation systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention in the general context of "matching a first entity with at least one second entity" (’420 Patent, Abstract) and routing communications based on "economic factors and non-economic factors" (’420 Patent, Fig. 7), which could suggest a broad interpretation covering any system that allocates resources based on competing values.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses terminology associated with traditional auctions, such as "proxy bidding" and "Dutch-type auctions" (’420 Patent, col. 13:46-51), and discusses systems where agents "bid for a caller" (’420 Patent, col. 21:51-52). This language may support a narrower construction limited to systems involving explicit or implicit bidding.

• The Term: "multifactorial cost-optimization" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’748 Patent. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system performs a simple rules-based routing or a more complex "multifactorial cost-optimization."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes maximizing an "aggregate utility," which could be argued to encompass any system that considers more than one factor to achieve a desirable outcome. The claims do not recite a specific mathematical formula for the optimization.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed formula for optimization that includes terms for agent cost, anticipated change in agent value, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost (’748 Patent, col. 24:50-58). This detailed embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires a similarly complex, multi-component calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. This allegation is based on the claim 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" the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" constitutes actual knowledge for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This suggests a theory of post-filing willfulness rather than pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological applicability: can patents drafted in the technical field of complex call center and telecommunications routing be construed to cover the customer service or online ordering systems of a fast-casual restaurant chain? The resolution will depend heavily on claim construction.
• A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "auction" and "economic surplus," as used in the patents, be interpreted broadly enough to read on the alleged functionalities of Defendant’s systems, or will they be limited to the more specific embodiments described in the specifications?
• A key evidentiary question will be what specific facts Plaintiff can develop to support its bare-bones allegations. Given the lack of detail in the complaint, the case will likely hinge on whether discovery reveals that Defendant's systems perform the specific multifactorial, cost-based, and utility-maximizing optimizations required by the patent claims.