DCT

4:23-cv-04470

Patent Armory Inc v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-04470, S.D. Tex., 11/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Texas because the defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to advanced telecommunications and call center management, which focuses on optimizing the routing of communications to agents or other targets to improve efficiency and economic outcomes.
  • 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

Date Event
2002-03-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’979 and ’253 Patents
2003-03-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’420 and ’086 Patents
2006-04-04 ’979 Patent Issued
2006-04-03 Earliest Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2007-09-11 ’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19 ’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 ’748 Patent Issued
2023-11-28 Complaint Filing Date

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 March 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, including the "under-skilled agent problem," where agents lack the skills to handle a routed call, and the "over-skilled agent problem," where highly trained agents handle simple tasks, leading to inefficient resource allocation (Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by defining parameters for both and then performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the "economic surplus" of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-13). This allows for a more dynamic and economically-driven matching process than simple skill-based routing.
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a move toward more sophisticated, economically-aware resource management in call centers, aiming to optimize global efficiency rather than just resolving the next transaction in a queue (Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 4:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted from the ’420 Patent, referring generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method” (Issued November 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent addresses the limitations of conventional call center routing, which often relies on static rules and fails to account for the full economic context of call handling and agent allocation (Compl. ¶8; ’748 Patent, col. 1:25–col. 4:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system that determines an optimal routing path by representing the "predicted characteristics" of both communication sources and targets, each having an associated "economic utility." The system then maximizes an "aggregate utility" to determine the optimal routing between the sources and targets (’748 Patent, Abstract). This solution creates a more intelligent and holistic routing decision framework based on predicted economic outcomes.
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a communication system to make routing decisions based on a calculated, aggregate economic benefit, moving beyond simple one-to-one matching to consider the overall utility to the system (Compl. ¶8; ’748 Patent, col. 27:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted from the ’748 Patent, referring generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing” (Issued April 4, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system that includes an input for receiving a communications classification and a database of agent skill scores. A processor computes an optimum agent selection based on the classification and skill data, and directly controls the routing of the communication (Compl. ¶8; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a communications system and method where communications are received, characteristics of potential targets are stored, and an optimal target is determined for each communication through a combinatorial optimization. The optimization may also include a cost-benefit analysis and consider the predicted availability of a target (Compl. ¶8; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction” (Issued September 27, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 patent, discloses a method for matching entities by defining targeting parameters for a first entity and characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities. An automated optimization is then performed with respect to the economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of making a second entity unavailable for an alternate match (Compl. ¶8; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. It refers 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 accused instrumentality's functionality or market context, as this information is contained in external exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a narrative theory of infringement or claim charts for any of the asserted patents. Instead, it incorporates all infringement allegations by reference to external exhibits (Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 35-36, 41-42, 50-51). The pleading states only in a conclusory manner that the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by and satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary ... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17).

  • Identified Points of Contention: The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the asserted claims and the functionality of the accused products precludes the identification of specific technical or legal points of contention from the pleading itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims from any of the patents-in-suit, which prevents an analysis of key claim terms that may be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant 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, 33, 48). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it does allege "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, with knowledge established by the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 47). In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requests a judgment that "this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. ¶ N.i).

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

The complaint's sparse nature suggests that the initial phase of the case will focus on foundational legal and procedural issues before turning to technical disputes.

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which incorporates all substantive infringement allegations by reference to unfiled external exhibits, meet the plausibility standard under Twombly/Iqbal and provide the defendant with adequate notice of the claims against it?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Once discovery commences and the accused products and asserted claims are specified, the case will likely focus on whether Defendant's systems perform the specific "multifactorial optimization," "economic utility," or "auction" based routing required by the patent claims, or if they operate on fundamentally different technical principles.
  • A central legal question will be one of patent differentiation: Given the assertion of five patents from overlapping families with similar titles and technology, a key issue for the court will be to construe the claims of each patent distinctly and determine how the specific scope of each applies, without redundancy, to the accused functionalities.