Patent Armory Inc v. LinkedIn Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: LinkedIn Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00574, W.D. Tex., 08/07/2023
• 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’s professional networking platform infringes patents related to methods for matching entities and intelligent communication routing.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit describe technology originally developed for optimizing call routing in telecommunications call centers by matching callers to agents based on various parameters.
• 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

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, where simple "first-come-first-served" or basic skill-based routing leads to suboptimal pairings of callers and agents, resulting in longer wait times and inefficient use of resources (’420 Patent, col. 1:26-50; col. 3:35-42).
• 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 a computerized, multifactorial optimization. This optimization considers not only the skill-based fit between the entities but also economic factors, such as the "economic surplus" of a successful match and the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:3-8).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from simple queuing logic to a more sophisticated, holistic optimization model for resource allocation in communications systems, aiming to improve global efficiency rather than just handling the next task in line (’420 Patent, col. 25:10-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, with specific claims identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, 14). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to (i) an economic surplus of a respective match and (ii) an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the matched second entity for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’420 Patent, this patent addresses the technical problem of inefficiently routing communications in environments like call centers, where agents may be under-skilled or over-skilled for a given task, reducing overall throughput (’205 Patent, col. 4:34-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method where a router executes a "communication targeting algorithm." This algorithm goes beyond simple routing rules by "contextually jointly" analyzing both parameters extracted from the communication itself (e.g., caller needs) and contextual parameters (e.g., agent skills, availability, and cost) to determine an "optimum target" for the communication (’205 Patent, Abstract; col. 35:9-14). The system is designed to perform this complex analysis at a low level within the communications architecture to minimize latency (’205 Patent, col. 18:25-33).
• Technical Importance: The patented solution aims to embed sophisticated, real-time optimization logic directly into the communications routing hardware/software, rather than relying on slower, high-level external systems to make intelligent routing decisions (’205 Patent, col. 25:10-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, with specific claims identified in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, 20). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A system and method for communicating in a communication network.
  • Presenting a communication comprising data over a network to a router.
  • The router automatically executing a communication targeting algorithm based at least in part on the data.
  • The algorithm operates to "contextually jointly analyze" a plurality of parameters from the data and a plurality of contextual parameters to determine an "optimum target."
  • Routing the communication in dependence on the algorithm's execution.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are identified in claim chart exhibits incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶12, 14, 18, 20). These exhibits were not provided. The defendant is LinkedIn Corp.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14, 20). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused functionality or its market context, as these details are contained within the referenced exhibits.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference Exhibits 3 and 4, which reportedly contain claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶14, 20). As these exhibits were not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having its "employees internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶12, 13, 18, 19).

Based on the patent claims and the general nature of Defendant's business, several points of contention may arise:

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’420 Patent): The infringement analysis may focus on whether LinkedIn's platform for connecting professionals, recruiters, and job seekers constitutes an "auction" as that term is used in the patent. Further questions may arise regarding whether the platform's matching algorithms perform an optimization based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," terms that have specific meanings in the patent’s call-center context (’420 Patent, col. 22:3-6; col. 24:54-61).
  • Technical Questions (’205 Patent): A central technical question may be whether the accused system's matching logic performs the claimed "contextually jointly analyze" function. The dispute could turn on whether Defendant's system considers both communication-specific and contextual parameters in the holistic, multifactorial manner described in the patent specification, or if it uses a different, simpler matching logic (’205 Patent, col. 38:2-14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "auction"
• Context and Importance: The applicability of the ’420 Patent to Defendant’s technology may depend heavily on whether LinkedIn’s systems for matching users (e.g., job applicants to recruiters) can be defined as an "auction." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be case-dispositive.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification contemplates various implementations, including those where "agents bid for a caller," suggesting a process of competition for a resource, which could be argued to apply broadly (’420 Patent, col. 22:50-53). Claim 1 itself does not limit the term to a specific type of auction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly frames the invention in the context of call centers and telecommunications, which may suggest the term was intended to be understood within that specific technological field (’420 Patent, col. 1:26-27; Fig. 6). The abstract also frames the invention in the context of economic surplus and opportunity cost, which are not typical features of all competitive matching systems.

’205 Patent

• The Term: "contextually jointly analyze"
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a neologism central to the claimed invention, defining the specific type of analysis the router must perform. Infringement may depend on whether the accused system performs an analysis that is both "contextual" and "joint," as opposed to a simpler, sequential, or non-contextual analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the algorithm analyzes "a plurality of parameters extracted from the data and a plurality of contextual parameters," which could be interpreted broadly to cover any system that considers more than one factor from both the communication and its environment (’205 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of the analysis, including cost-utility functions and optimizations for training, suggesting a specific, complex form of multifactorial analysis is required (’205 Patent, col. 36:30-34; Fig. 1). The term "jointly" may be construed to require that the parameters are considered simultaneously in a unified algorithm, not merely in sequence.

VI. Other Allegations

This section is omitted as the complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement.

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the following key, open questions for the court:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost," which are described in the ’420 Patent within the technological setting of a call center, be construed to read on the features and algorithms of a professional social networking platform?
2. A key technical question will be one of operational correspondence: does the accused LinkedIn platform's matching algorithm perform the specific "contextually jointly analyze" function required by the ’205 Patent, or is there a fundamental difference in the way the patented invention and the accused system technically operate to match entities?
3. An evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the lack of detail in the complaint itself, what specific evidence will Plaintiff present from the accused systems to demonstrate that each element of the asserted claims is met, particularly for the complex optimization and analysis limitations?