Patent Armory Inc v. Likewize Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Likewize Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-3173, N.D. Tex., 12/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Northern District of Texas and having committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to call center management technology, which uses complex algorithms to optimize the routing of communications to agents based on economic and skill-based factors.
• 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.

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”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, entitled “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued March 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge in call centers of efficiently routing electronic customer contacts. Traditional methods, such as first-in-first-out queues or simple skill-based routing, can result in suboptimal pairings of callers and agents, leading to problems such as routing a call to an under-skilled or over-skilled agent. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• 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) through an "automated optimization." This optimization considers not only the skill-based fit but also the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential calls, aiming for a more globally efficient allocation of resources. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economic model that seeks to maximize the overall utility or value of the call center's operations in real time. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 24:1-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an exhibit that is not provided, preventing identification of the specific asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶15, 17-18).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, entitled “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” issued November 26, 2019. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the inefficiency of conventional call center routing systems that do not perform complex, real-time optimizations to match callers with agents. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 2:25-3:34).
• The Patented Solution: The patented method involves a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing between communication sources and targets. The system maximizes an "aggregate utility" based on the "predicted characteristics" of both the source and the target, each of which is associated with an "economic utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract). This solution relies on a predictive, utility-maximizing economic framework rather than simple, pre-determined routing rules. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 18:10-20).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for intelligent, low-level routing decisions that can incorporate complex business goals, such as training objectives or long-term customer satisfaction, directly into the routing logic. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 24:28-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an exhibit that is not provided, preventing identification of the specific asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶21, 26-27).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficient call routing in telephony systems. The proposed solution is a communications management system that performs a "multifactorial optimization" based on "communications classification" and agent "skill scores" to determine an optimal routing for a received communication. (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, incorporating them by reference from an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶32).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify them or specify accused features. (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the same field of intelligent call routing. It describes a method for determining an optimal set of associations between concurrent calls and available agents by performing a "multifactorial optimization" based on the "weighted correspondence" of call characteristics and agent characteristics. (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, incorporating them by reference from an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶38).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify them or specify accused features. (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this invention pertains to matching entities through an auction-like mechanism. The solution involves an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making one entity unavailable for an alternate match, thereby seeking a globally efficient pairing. (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims, incorporating them by reference from an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶47).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify them or specify accused features. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name, referring to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the" patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). No allegations regarding the products' market context or commercial importance are made.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a narrative infringement theory or any specific facts concerning the operation of the accused products. Instead, it incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the available document, and claim chart summaries cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention: The lack of factual detail in the complaint regarding the accused products and the infringement theory prevents the identification of specific potential points of technical or legal contention. A primary point of contention at the pleading stage may be whether the complaint provides sufficient notice of infringement under federal pleading standards.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization" (from the ’420 Patent family)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's distinction from conventional, static rule-based systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute could center on whether Defendant’s system performs a true "optimization" (implying a process that seeks a best outcome from among alternatives based on a defined objective function) or merely applies a set of predetermined, non-optimal rules.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization as accounting for a wide range of factors, including economic goals, training objectives, and agent/caller characteristics, which may support a broad construction covering any multi-factorial decision-making process. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 22:4-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show specific "cost-utility function[s]" being optimized, which may support an argument that the term requires a specific type of mathematical or algorithmic implementation. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, Fig. 1, 308).
• The Term: "economic surplus" (from the ’420 Patent family)
• Context and Importance: This term, borrowed from economics, is not standard in the art of telephony or computer science and its definition will be critical to determining the scope of the claims. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system calculates a value that meets the patent’s definition of "economic surplus."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the term broadly, which could support an interpretation that it encompasses any calculated measure of net benefit or value derived from a match, not necessarily a formal monetary calculation. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The lack of a precise definition or formula in the specification for calculating "economic surplus" may lead a court to limit the term to the specific examples disclosed, or it could open the term to a challenge for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

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 inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶¶24, 45). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date the complaint was served. (Compl. ¶¶25, 46).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not expressly use the word "willful," it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, based on the service of the complaint and attached (but unprovided) claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶23, 44). The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for these patents, which is contingent on a finding of willful or egregious infringement. (Compl. p. 10, ¶L).

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

• A central issue will be one of pleading sufficiency and evidence: given the complaint's lack of factual specificity regarding the accused products and its reliance on unprovided exhibits, a threshold question is whether the plaintiff has provided adequate notice of its infringement claims and whether it can substantiate these claims with evidence during discovery.
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can abstract, economics-based claim terms such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility" be construed with sufficient clarity to cover the specific functionalities of Defendant's systems, and can they withstand potential challenges for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112?
• A key technical question will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused technology perform the multi-factorial, predictive "optimization" required by the patents, or does it operate on a simpler, rules-based logic that falls outside the claimed invention?