Patent Armory Inc v. Meta Platforms Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00541, W.D. Tex., 07/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing the matching of communications or transactions with available service agents, such as in a call center, by using multifactorial and economic-based analyses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,831,205 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Priority Date
2014-09-09	U.S. Patent No. 8,831,205 Issues
2019-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issues
2023-07-27	Complaint Filed

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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 the inefficiencies in traditional call center management, where routing incoming calls to agents is often handled by simplistic "first-come-first-served" or static skill-based rules (ʼ420 Patent, col. 2:42-53). These methods fail to optimally account for complex variables, leading to problems such as routing a call to an "under-skilled agent" or an "over-skilled agent," which reduces transactional throughput (ʼ420 Patent, col. 4:35-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated matching system that functions like an auction. It defines characteristics for both the incoming entity (e.g., a call) and the available target entities (e.g., agents) as "multivalued scalar data." The system then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for future, potentially more valuable, matches (ʼ420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:5-22:42).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move beyond simple queuing and apply principles of economic optimization to resource allocation in telecommunications, aiming for a more globally efficient system outcome over time.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify the specific patent claims asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" in an exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core inventive concept.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; 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.

U.S. Patent No. 8,831,205 - "Intelligent communication routing," issued September 9, 2014

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 fail to account for the complex interplay of caller needs, agent skills, and operational goals (ʼ205 Patent, col. 2:40-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for routing communications by first defining user profiles with various characteristics. When communication requests are received, the system defines an "optimization criterion" and performs a "combinatorial" analysis to determine the "optimum set" of pairings between requesters and available agents. This determination seeks to identify the set of matches that yields the "highest net benefit," which can account for factors beyond simple skill matching, such as training value or long-term operational goals (ʼ205 Patent, Claim 1; col. 36:25-39). The analysis is intended to be performed at a low level within the communications system itself (ʼ205 Patent, col. 18:6-21).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to embed complex, multifactorial optimization directly into the communications routing process, allowing for more dynamic and intelligent resource allocation than static, high-level rule sets would permit.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify the specific patent claims asserted, referring instead to "Exemplary '205 Patent Claims" in an exhibit that was not provided (Compl. ¶20). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core inventive concept.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communication method, comprising:
  • maintaining a profile for each of a plurality of users;
  • receiving a request for respective communication opportunities for a first subset of the users;
  • determining an availability of each respective user for a communication for a second subset of the users;
  • defining an optimization criterion for matching members of the first subset with members of the second subset;
  • combinatorially determining a predicted net benefit of a proposed set of respective mutually exclusive communications;
  • defining a set of respective mutually exclusive communications which represents the highest net benefit to the plurality of users as an optimum set; and
  • storing in a memory a description of the optimum set of respective communications.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶¶14, 20). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The complaint therefore does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶¶15, 21). The complaint contains no narrative description of Defendant's alleged infringement. Therefore, a summary of the infringement allegations and an identification of potential points of contention is not possible from the provided documents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

The Term: "economic surplus"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to Claim 1 and imports an economic concept into a technical method claim. Its definition will be critical for determining the scope of the required "automated optimization." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the claim reads on standard technical optimization algorithms or requires a more specific, monetized calculation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses balancing competing goals and making efficient use of resources, suggesting "economic surplus" could be interpreted broadly to mean a generalized "utility" or "efficiency gain" (’420 Patent, col. 2:28-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses economic language like "auction," "cost," and "cost-utility function," suggesting "economic surplus" may require a more literal, quantitative calculation of value or cost, potentially tied to monetary units or a direct proxy thereof (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:30-41).

The Term: "opportunity cost"

• Context and Importance: This term, also in Claim 1, introduces another abstract economic principle. Infringement will depend on whether an accused system can be shown to calculate or consider the value of not making a particular match in favor of a potential future match. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether an accused system's resource allocation logic performs this specific forward-looking calculation or merely makes a point-in-time optimal selection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses considering the availability of agents for "other calls, predicted or actual," which could support a broad reading where any consideration of future resource needs meets this limitation (’420 Patent, col. 24:42-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed formula provided includes a specific variable "Dcn" representing "the opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call," suggesting a specific, quantifiable input to the optimization algorithm is contemplated (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-61).

’205 Patent

The Term: "combinatorially determining"

• Context and Importance: This term in Claim 1 describes the nature of the required analysis. The dispute may turn on what type of analysis qualifies as "combinatorial." Practitioners may focus on this term to argue whether a simple weighted-sum algorithm is sufficient, or if the claim requires an algorithm that evaluates multiple possible sets of pairings against one another.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the complexity of the combinatorial analysis, which might allow it to read on any process that considers combinations of inputs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples show a "combinatorial analysis of agents vs. callers" that evaluates numerous potential pairings to find a global maximum value, suggesting an exhaustive or near-exhaustive evaluation of possible outcomes is what is meant (’205 Patent, col. 45:7-12; Table 5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only "Direct Infringement" for both patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). No facts are alleged to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement.

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

1. Patent Eligibility: A primary issue will be whether the claims, which recite abstract concepts of "economic surplus", "opportunity cost", and "optimization" for the purpose of matching entities, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or are instead abstract ideas implemented with generic computer components.
2. Sufficiency of Pleadings: A key procedural question is whether the complaint, which bases its infringement allegations entirely on un-filed exhibits and provides no narrative theory of infringement, meets the plausibility standard under Twombly and Iqbal by failing to provide Defendant with adequate notice of the specific conduct alleged to be infringing.
3. Technical Mapping: Assuming the case proceeds, a central evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: how can the abstract economic and mathematical concepts recited in the claims (e.g., "predicted net benefit", "combinatorially determining") be mapped onto the concrete, algorithmic functions of the specific, yet-to-be-identified, accused products?