Patent Armory Inc v. Continuum Global Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Continuum Global Solutions, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: Patent Armory Inc. v. Continuum Global Solutions, LLC, 3:24-cv-03258, N.D. Tex., 12/27/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s call center products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent and optimized call routing systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced automated call distribution (ACD) systems used in call centers to match incoming communications with available agents based on complex, multi-factorial criteria to optimize for cost and effectiveness.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of an extended family that claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2003, suggesting a long-standing development and prosecution effort in this technology area.

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, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction", issued March 19, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call center routing systems, such as first-in, first-out (FIFO) queues, which fail to effectively match callers with the best-suited agents, particularly in environments with agents possessing varied skills (’420 Patent, col. 4:11-34). This can lead to problems like routing a call to an under-skilled or over-skilled agent, reducing transactional throughput and overall efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by framing the matching process as an auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system defines targeting parameters for the caller and characteristic parameters for the agents, and then performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match (’420 Patent, col. 21:5-12). This optimization considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making a skilled agent unavailable for other potential matches, aiming for a more globally optimal outcome than simple skill-based routing (’420 Patent, col. 24:42-50; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond simple, sequential routing rules to a more holistic, dynamic optimization that can account for complex, competing objectives within a call center, such as balancing immediate call-handling needs with long-term agent training goals (’420 Patent, col. 27:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for a first entity (inferential targeting parameters) and 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 a second entity.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of that second entity for matching with 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method", issued November 26, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares its specification with the ’420 Patent, addresses the same problem of suboptimal call routing in call centers that do not intelligently account for the specific skills of agents and the unique needs of callers (’748 Patent, col. 2:26-35).
• The Patented Solution: The patented system determines an optimal routing path by representing both communication sources (callers) and targets (agents) with predicted characteristics, each having an "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then seeks to maximize the "aggregate utility" across all potential source-target pairings, effectively performing a global optimization to find the best set of concurrent matches rather than just the best match for a single call in isolation (’748 Patent, col. 24:55-65). This is illustrated in the system architecture shown in Fig. 3, where a central processor (509) considers multiple inputs to control a call router (512) (’748 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for call routing that can be optimized for global business goals (e.g., overall profit or customer satisfaction) rather than just local, per-call efficiency metrics (’748 Patent, col. 24:30-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 requires a system that can:
  • Represent an economic utility for each of a plurality of communications sources based on predicted characteristics.
  • Represent an economic utility for each of a plurality of communications targets based on predicted characteristics.
  • Determine an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7023979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing", issued April 4, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an earlier member of the asserted patent family, describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It discloses a system with an input for receiving a communication's classification and a database of agent skills, using a processor to compute an optimal agent selection based on the match between the communication's needs and the agent's skills (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7269253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing", issued September 11, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system and method for routing communications where characteristics of potential targets (agents) are stored and an optimal target is determined for a given communication through a combinatorial optimization. The optimization considers a cost-benefit analysis and may be influenced by factors such as predicted agent availability (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9456086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction", issued September 27, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a direct predecessor to the ’420 Patent, discloses a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for each and performing an automated optimization. The optimization considers the economic surplus of a match as well as the opportunity cost of making one entity unavailable for an alternate match, framing the routing decision as an auction to achieve an efficient outcome (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts," which it terms the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges that these products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit but does so by incorporating by reference claim charts in Exhibits 6 through 10, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No specific features, functions, or market context of the accused products are described in the body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibits 6 and 7 for the ’420 and ’748 patents, respectively, which were not provided. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

’420 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention: The infringement analysis for the ’420 Patent may raise several questions for the court.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "automated optimization." Does the accused product's routing logic perform an optimization that simultaneously considers both "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as required by claim 1, or does it employ a simpler, rules-based hierarchy that does not meet this conjunctive requirement?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product calculates a specific "opportunity cost" associated with agent unavailability? This element requires more than simply noting an agent is busy; it suggests a quantitative assessment of the value lost by assigning that agent to a less-than-optimal task, a specific function that may be a point of factual dispute.

’748 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention: The infringement analysis for the ’748 Patent may also present key points of contention.
  • Scope Questions: The term "maximizing an aggregate utility" may be a focal point. Does this term require a combinatorial optimization across all pending communications and all available agents to find the globally optimal set of pairings, or can it be read to cover a series of individual, greedy optimizations that merely seek the best agent for each call sequentially?
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's functionality aligns with the claim language. Does the system actually represent callers and agents with a defined "economic utility" and then perform a maximization of the "aggregate utility," or does it operate on different, non-economic metrics (e.g., matching keywords to agent skill tags) that may not map to the claimed method?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core of the claimed method. The patentability and infringement analyses will depend on whether the accused system performs this specific, two-part optimization. Practitioners may focus on whether "and" requires a single, integrated optimization algorithm that considers both factors simultaneously, or if separate considerations of each would suffice.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as one where "the target of a communication is defined by an algorithm, rather than a predetermined address or simple rule" (’420 Patent, col. 18:16-19), which could support interpreting "optimization" to cover a range of intelligent, rule-based routing decisions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific formula for an optimization that includes distinct terms for the value of the transaction (Ccn) and the opportunity cost (Dcn), suggesting a specific, multi-component calculation is required (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-53).

’748 Patent

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it distinguishes the claimed invention from simpler systems that optimize for a single call. The dispute may turn on whether "aggregate" requires a global optimization over a set of potential pairings, which is computationally intensive, or if it can cover less complex methods.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "utility" is described broadly to include economic parameters like profit as well as non-economic factors like customer satisfaction, which could support a more flexible interpretation of how "aggregate utility" is calculated (’748 Patent, col. 24:30-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a scenario of "competing requests for allocation" where the system "selects an optimal pairing of respective multiple agents with multiple matters," rather than just selecting an optimal agent for a given matter. This language supports a narrower construction requiring a combinatorial optimization across multiple pending calls and available agents (’748 Patent, col. 24:60-65).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers and end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 patents, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" and that Defendant's subsequent infringing activities are therefore intentional (Compl. ¶23-25, ¶44-46). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement and a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

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

• A primary issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the patentee establish that terms like "automated optimization", "opportunity cost", and "maximizing an aggregate utility" require the specific, complex, and holistic calculations described in the specification? Conversely, can the defendant argue that these terms should be construed more broadly, or that its simpler, heuristic-based routing systems fall outside the narrower, technically-specific meaning?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Since the complaint lacks specific factual allegations about the accused products' operation, the case will likely depend on the plaintiff's ability to obtain and present evidence from discovery showing that the defendant’s systems actually perform the multi-factorial, utility-maximizing optimizations required by the asserted claims.
• A key legal and factual question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused technology perform a true combinatorial optimization to achieve a globally "aggregate" utility, as suggested by the patent's more detailed embodiments, or does it achieve a similar outcome through a series of less complex, sequential, or greedy algorithms that may not meet the literal requirements of the claims?