Patent Armory Inc v. Yoshinoya America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Yoshinoya America, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01505, N.D. Tex., 06/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and causing harm to the plaintiff there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent and economically optimized communication routing systems, such as those used in call centers.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to advanced telecommunications routing, where incoming communications are matched with available agents or resources based on complex optimizations that consider factors like agent skills, economic utility, and opportunity costs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. All five asserted patents claim priority to a provisional application filed in 2002.

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 inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as the problems of routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, and the inflexibility of static agent groupings (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 3:26-5:4). These issues can reduce transactional throughput and increase operational costs (col. 4:26-34).
• 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, multifactorial optimization ('420 Patent, Figs. 4, 8). This optimization considers not only the skill-based fit but also an "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches ('420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:4-22:42).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple, sequential call routing (e.g., first-come-first-served) to a more dynamic, economic-based model for resource allocation in real-time communications ('420 Patent, col. 18:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • Receiving call classification information for a plurality of calls.
  • Representing a plurality of agent characteristics for a plurality of agents.
  • Determining an optimum set of concurrent, mutually exclusive associations of agents with calls.
  • The determination is dependent on a multifactorial optimization of the weighted correspondence between call characteristics and agent characteristics.
  • Controlling a concurrent call routing of the calls based on the determination.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

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 challenge of efficiently managing electronic customer contact in a call center, aiming to balance high-quality service with the efficient use of resources (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 1:24-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that models both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with "predicted characteristics," each having an "economic utility" ('748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" that considers the fit between the source and target ('748 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:41-24:50). Figure 1 illustrates a process flow that optimizes a cost-utility function for call center operations ('748 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for routing communications based on maximizing a calculated economic value rather than relying on static, pre-determined rules ('748 Patent, col. 18:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing distinct agent characteristics.
  • A processor that determines an optimum agent based on a multifactorial optimization of the correspondence between the call classification and agent characteristics.
  • The processor controls the routing of calls in dependence on the determination.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

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 for intelligent call routing. It discloses a system that receives a communication classification, accesses a database of agent skills and costs, and uses a processor to compute an optimum agent selection based on that information, directly controlling the call routing (Compl. ¶11; '979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Unspecified "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '979 patent, also details an intelligent call routing system. The invention involves determining an optimal routing of a communication to one of at least three potential targets based on a combinatorial optimization that considers both the communication's characteristics and the targets' characteristics ('253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Unspecified "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (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 describes a method for matching entities by running an automated, auction-like optimization. The system defines parameters for a first entity (e.g., a call) and multiple second entities (e.g., agents) and calculates an "economic surplus" for each potential match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches ('086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Unspecified "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific features or functionality. All detailed infringement allegations are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the products’ market positioning.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to external exhibits that were not available for analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patents-in-suit are described primarily in the context of telecommunications call centers managing large volumes of calls and agents ('420 Patent, col. 2:25-44). A central question may be one of scope: whether the terminology of the claims, such as "call," "agent," and "auction," can be construed to read on the functionalities of the defendant's products, which operates in the restaurant industry (Compl. ¶3).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will concern the nature of the optimization performed by the accused products. For the '420 Patent, this raises the question of whether the accused system performs an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," as the claims require ('420 Patent, Abstract). For the '748 Patent, the question is whether the accused system functions by "maximizing an aggregate utility" based on "economic utility" values ('748 Patent, Abstract). The case may turn on whether the defendant's system performs these specific, claimed economic calculations or uses a different, non-infringing logic for its operations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from '420 Patent: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"

Context and Importance

• This phrase from the '420 Patent's abstract and claims appears to be the central novel element, distinguishing the invention from simple skill-based routing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused system's routing algorithm can be characterized as performing this specific two-part economic calculation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimization in general terms as a "cost-utility function" that can incorporate a wide variety of "disparate factors" normalized into a common metric of "cost" ('420 Patent, col. 23:59-24:24). This could support a reading that covers any system that weighs benefits against costs.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific formula for this optimization: An=Max({[Acn1Σ(rs1ans1)+Acn2]+Bcn}+Ccn)+Dcn, where Dcn represents the "opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call" ('420 Patent, col. 24:51-59). This detailed formula could support a narrower construction requiring an explicit calculation of opportunity cost as a distinct variable.

Term from '748 Patent: "maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination"

Context and Importance

• This phrase from the '748 Patent's abstract is the core of its claimed routing method. The infringement question will likely hinge on whether the accused system's process for handling customer interactions can be shown to "maximize an aggregate utility" as described.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "intelligence of the server may be used to implement telephony or computer-telephony integration features," which could be interpreted broadly to cover various intelligent routing schemes ('748 Patent, col. 18:20-24).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of "economic utility" and optimizing a "cost-utility function" for long-term call center operation, as shown in the flowchart of Figure 1 ('748 Patent, col. 23:41-24:14, Fig. 1). This context may support a narrower construction limited to systems that explicitly model and maximize a defined economic utility function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '748 and '086 Patents. This allegation is based on the defendant allegedly distributing "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, for the '748 and '086 Patents, it alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms such as "call," "agent," and "auction," which are rooted in the patents' descriptions of telecommunications call centers, be construed to cover the features and functions of the defendant's systems, which are used in the restaurant industry? The viability of the plaintiff's infringement theory may depend heavily on the breadth afforded to these terms during claim construction.
• A second key issue will be one of technical and evidentiary basis: does the defendant's system actually perform the specific, multi-factor economic optimizations required by the patent claims, such as calculating "opportunity cost" or "maximizing an aggregate utility"? Because the complaint withholds its specific infringement contentions in unavailable exhibits, a central question will be what evidence the plaintiff can produce to show that the accused systems technically operate in the manner claimed by the patents.