Patent Armory Inc v. Food Huggers Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Food Huggers, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-03378, S.D. Tex., 09/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Southern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in telecommunications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns sophisticated call-center management systems that use algorithms and economic principles to optimize the connection of incoming communications to available agents or resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference 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 (Issued Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inherent inefficiencies of traditional call centers, which must balance the competing goals of providing high-quality customer service (e.g., short wait times) while making efficient use of resources (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems, often using a first-come-first-served approach, are described as suboptimal, particularly when agents have varying skill sets (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-14; col. 4:13-34).
• 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 performing an "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization considers not only the characteristics of the caller and the skills of the agents but also economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for a different, potentially more valuable, match (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:4-13). This system moves beyond simple sequencing to a dynamic, multifactorial matching process akin to an auction (’420 Patent, col. 21:50-54).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, economically-driven system that can adapt to changing conditions and optimize for business objectives beyond just minimizing wait time (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The specification addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, namely the inefficiencies in traditional call center management and the need for more intelligent routing logic that can account for agent skills and other variables (’748 Patent, col. 2:26-34, col. 4:13-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention, as described in the abstract, is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). It involves representing the predicted characteristics of both communication "sources" (e.g., callers) and "targets" (e.g., agents), each having an associated "economic utility," and then calculating the best match based on these factors (’748 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technical approach focuses on creating a predictive, utility-maximizing framework for routing, allowing a system to make routing decisions based on projected economic outcomes rather than static rules (’748 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, Telephony control system with intelligent call routing, issued 2006-04-04 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: Based on its title, this patent appears to disclose a control system for telephone networks that employs intelligent logic to route calls, likely as an improvement over conventional routing methods (Compl. ¶11).
• Asserted Claims: Plaintiff asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe by practicing the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, Telephony control system with intelligent call routing, issued 2007-09-11 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: The title, identical to that of the ’979 Patent, suggests this patent covers further aspects or embodiments of an intelligent call routing system for telephony (Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: Plaintiff asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are alleged to practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶38).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, Method and system for matching entities in an auction, issued 2016-09-27 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent’s title, similar to that of the ’420 Patent, suggests it relates to a system that uses an auction-based mechanism to match different entities, such as callers and agents in a telecommunications context (Compl. ¶13).
• Asserted Claims: Plaintiff asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name, referring to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by" the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). However, it provides no specific details regarding the technical functionality, operation, features, or market context of these products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts contained in Exhibits 6-10 but does not attach these exhibits (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement. The narrative allegations state that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having employees "internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶21-22, ¶30-31, ¶36-37, ¶42-43). The complaint asserts these actions satisfy all elements of the asserted claims literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, but provides no element-by-element analysis to support this conclusion (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, precluding an analysis of key terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant distributes "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. ¶24-25, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but not provided) claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This suggests any claim for enhanced damages would be based on alleged post-suit conduct.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary specificity: can the Plaintiff move beyond generic allegations against unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" to provide concrete evidence that maps specific features of identified products to the elements of specific, asserted patent claims?
• A second foundational question will be one of claim identification and scope: which specific claims from the five asserted patents will be the focus of the litigation, and how will key terms within those claims be construed, particularly in the context of routing and auction technologies?
• A third question concerns patent differentiation: with multiple patents covering similar technological concepts (e.g., two on "intelligent call routing," two on "matching entities in an auction"), a key issue will be to delineate the distinct scope and contribution of each asserted patent and to demonstrate how the accused products allegedly infringe each one independently.