Patent Armory Inc v. Moneygram Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: MoneyGram International, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-2239, N.D. Tex., 08/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching systems for communications.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the management of call centers and other communications hubs by intelligently matching incoming requests with available agents or resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2010-03-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Application Filed
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2025-08-20	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge in call center management of balancing high-quality customer service with the efficient use of resources (Compl. ¶9; ’979 Patent, col. 1:18-28). Specifically, it identifies problems arising from routing calls to "under-skilled" agents, who cannot handle the transaction, or "over-skilled" agents, resulting in inefficient resource allocation (’979 Patent, col. 4:25-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that moves beyond simple first-in, first-out call queuing. It uses a processor to compute an "optimum agent selection" by analyzing a received "communications classification" against a database of agent skill scores and a database of skill weights (’979 Patent, Abstract). This allows the system to intelligently match a call's specific needs with the most appropriate available agent, as depicted in the flowchart of Figure 1, which outlines a decision process for either skill-based routing or a combination of training and skill-based routing (’979 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of automated call distributors (ACDs) by replacing static routing rules with dynamic, skill-based decision-making.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one unspecified independent method claim (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system:
  • A communications management system comprising: an input for receiving a communications classification;
  • a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification;
  • a database of agent skill scores; and
  • a processor, for computing, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection, the processor directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general call center management problems as the ’979 Patent, including the inefficient use of agent resources and the negative effects of static agent grouping (’086 Patent, col. 1:21-29, col. 3:61-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention advances the concept of skill-based matching by framing it as an auction. The system matches a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization based on "multivalued scalar data" representing parameters for each entity (’086 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" of the match and the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:45-64:4).
• Technical Importance: This technology introduced economic and auction-theory principles to the call-routing problem, seeking to optimize the overall economic utility of the call center, rather than just the outcome of a single call.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one unspecified independent claim (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the 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 a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities...; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12, ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. The specific products, their functionalities, and their market context are identified in Exhibits 3 and 4, which are incorporated by reference but were not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). The pleading alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶12-13, ¶18-19).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or claim charts in its body, instead incorporating by reference external exhibits that are not provided (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). It alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all claim elements (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). Without the exhibits, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’979 Patent): A central question may be whether Defendant's system performs an "optimum agent selection" as defined by the patent. The dispute could turn on whether the accused routing logic is merely rule-based or if it involves a "computing" process that considers "skill weights" and "agent skill scores" to arrive at an optimized result.
  • Technical Questions (’086 Patent): The analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant’s system performs an "automated optimization" that can be characterized as an "auction." A key question is whether the accused system calculates an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost" as required by the claim, or if it uses a different technical methodology for routing communications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’979 Patent

• The Term: "optimum agent selection" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's routing algorithm, whatever its technical implementation, can be said to compute an "optimum" selection as the patent contemplates.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the optimization may be for various goals, including "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which may support a broad definition of "optimum" not limited to a single metric (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly frames the optimization in the context of skill-based routing and cost-utility functions, including long-term and short-term operational goals, which may suggest "optimum" requires a specific type of multi-factor calculation beyond simple routing (’979 Patent, col. 65:1-66:43).

For the ’086 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a critical limitation differentiating the invention from generic matching systems. The infringement analysis for the ’086 Patent may hinge on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant's system calculates a value corresponding to this economic concept.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in general terms of maximizing a "normalized economic surplus," which could be argued to cover any system that seeks to maximize a defined utility or value, even if not explicitly labeled an "economic surplus" (’086 Patent, col. 64:50-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself carries a specific meaning in economic theory. The detailed description discusses various cost factors, such as agent salaries, training costs, and anticipated call outcomes, suggesting that "economic surplus" requires a quantitative financial calculation rather than a more abstract utility score (’086 Patent, col. 65:1-32).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21-22).
• Willful Infringement: While the word "willful" is not used, the complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the ’086 Patent at least since the service of the complaint and continues to infringe, which forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶20-21). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged for either patent.

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "auction" as implied in the ’086 Patent, and its associated requirements of calculating an "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost", be construed to read on the alleged commercial transaction routing systems operated by Defendant?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the complaint's missing exhibits identify specific products, the case will require discovery into the internal workings of those systems to determine if they actually perform the multi-factor "optimum agent selection" and cost-utility calculations required by the asserted claims, or if they operate on a different technical principle.