Patent Armory Inc v. Comerica Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Comerica Bank (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-03093, N.D. Tex., 12/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas with an established place of business in Dallas, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer communication and call routing systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced systems for managing and routing communications in environments like call centers to optimize the matching of callers with agents based on various economic and non-economic factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. The asserted patents claim priority from applications dating back to 2003, indicating a long prosecution history for the underlying technology.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in conventional call centers, where simple routing methods like "first-come-first-served" or basic skill-based routing lead to suboptimal pairings of callers and agents (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-3:44). These methods can result in problems such as routing calls to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents, reducing transactional throughput and efficient use of resources ('420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" ('420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not just skills, but also an "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, thereby creating a more dynamic and economically efficient routing system ('420 Patent, col. 23:40-24:50; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to dynamic, economically-driven optimization, aiming to improve overall call center efficiency beyond simple queue management ('420 Patent, col. 2:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific claims, instead incorporating them by reference to an exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core method:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities,
  • comprising defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity,
  • and defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters,
  • and 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 an alternate match.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which would implicitly include dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

---

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations of conventional call center routing systems that fail to account for complex variables, leading to inefficient operations (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: This invention provides a system and method that determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, Abstract). The system's processor receives predicted characteristics for both communication sources (callers) and targets (agents), each having an "economic utility," and then calculates the optimal pairing to maximize the overall value of the connections ('748 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 37:50-38:26).
• Technical Importance: The patented solution provides a framework for routing based on the maximization of a defined utility, allowing for the integration of complex business objectives directly into the low-level communications switching architecture ('748 Patent, col. 18:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’748 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system:
  • A communications routing system comprising a processor and a memory with instructions that cause the processor to:
  • receive a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility;
  • receive a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility; and
  • determine an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.
• The complaint's general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" implicitly reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for intelligent call routing within a telephony control system. It addresses the problem of inefficiently matching callers to agents by proposing a system that computes an "optimum agent selection" based on a communications classification and agent skill scores, directly controlling the routing of the call (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not specify them (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" made, used, or sold by Comerica Bank infringe the patent (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, similar to the ’979 Patent, discloses a communications system and method where an "optimum target" for a communication is determined through a "combinatorial optimization." The system considers characteristics of the communication and of potential targets to find the best match based on a cost-benefit analysis (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not specify them (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Comerica Bank's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching entities by defining "multivalued scalar data" for both the entity initiating a communication and the potential target entities. The system then performs an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a target unavailable for other matches, framing the matching process as an auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not specify them (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Comerica Bank's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" used, sold, or offered for sale by Defendant Comerica Bank (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the accused products' functionality. Based on the nature of the asserted patents, which relate to intelligent call routing and entity matching, and the identity of the Defendant as a major bank, the accused instrumentalities are presumably systems and methods used by Comerica Bank to manage and route customer communications, such as its telephone-based customer service centers or other digital communication platforms. The complaint alleges these products are used internally by employees and are sold or offered for sale to customers, though it provides no specific details (Compl. ¶15-16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of all five patents-in-suit. For each asserted patent, the complaint incorporates by reference external exhibits containing claim charts that allegedly compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). However, these exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The complaint contains no narrative description of how any accused product meets any specific claim limitation.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the abstract concepts in the patents, such as an "auction" ('420 Patent), "economic surplus" ('420 Patent), and "economic utility" ('748 Patent), can be construed to read on the functionalities of a commercial bank's customer communication systems. The defense may argue these terms are limited to specific bidding or financial calculation mechanisms not present in its systems.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of factual detail raises the question of what evidence exists that Defendant's systems perform the complex, multi-factorial optimizations required by the claims. For example, a key technical question for the '420 and '748 patents will be whether the accused systems merely perform sequential, skill-based routing or if they conduct a global "optimization" or "utility maximization" across a plurality of callers and agents simultaneously, as the claims appear to require.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the asserted patents, the following terms may become central to the case.

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

• Context and Importance: This term is the central metaphor and claimed mechanism in the '420 and '086 patents. The infringement case for these patents may depend on whether the defendant’s process of assigning a caller to an agent from a queue can be characterized as an "auction." Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a competitive process (bidding) that may not exist in a standard call center.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can refer generally to a "method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity," which could be argued to cover any selection process ('420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed discussion of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as factors in the "automated optimization" could support a narrower definition requiring specific economic calculations akin to a formal auction, not just a selection from a queue ('420 Patent, Abstract).

• The Term: "economic utility" (from '748 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the '748 Patent requires determining an optimal routing by maximizing an "aggregate utility," which is based on the "economic utility" of both the communication source and target. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused system performs the claimed function.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that business goals like customer satisfaction can be "converted and normalized into economic terms," suggesting a broad definition that includes non-monetary business value ('748 Patent, col. 24:35-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes utility in the context of specific economic parameters such as "sales volume, profit, or the like," which may be used to argue for a more limited, financially-grounded definition ('748 Patent, col. 24:30-35).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '748 and '086 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24-25, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement for the '748 and '086 patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, as the complaint alleges Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).

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

This case appears to present two fundamental questions for the court that arise directly from the complaint's allegations and the asserted patents.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the technical and economic terminology of the patents, such as "auction" and "maximizing an aggregate utility," be construed broadly enough to encompass the likely operational logic of a commercial bank's customer routing systems, or are these terms limited to the specific, complex optimization algorithms detailed in the specifications?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: assuming the plaintiff overcomes the pleading stage, the case will likely turn on what evidence can be shown about how the accused systems actually work. Does discovery reveal that the defendant’s systems perform the multi-factorial, economically-driven optimizations required by the claims, or do they operate on simpler, non-infringing principles of conventional call routing?