Patent Armory Inc v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00575, W.D. Tex., 08/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe six patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the operation of large-scale communication centers, such as call centers, by using complex algorithms to route communications to the most appropriate targets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation between the parties, licensing negotiations, or post-grant validity challenges concerning 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 describes the inefficiencies in traditional call center management, particularly with Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems that use simple "first-come-first-served" or static skill-based routing, which can lead to mismatches between callers and agents and suboptimal use of resources (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-4:60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more sophisticated method for matching entities (e.g., a caller and an agent) by performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only skills but also an "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:9-22). This system uses multi-factor analysis to route communications concurrently to achieve a more globally optimal outcome for the call center (’420 Patent, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple, sequential queuing to a dynamic, multi-variable optimization model for managing communication traffic in real-time (’420 Patent, col. 25:1-26:3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific claims, instead referring to "Exemplary '420 Patent Claims" in a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving call classification information for a plurality of calls.
  • Representing a plurality of agent characteristics for a plurality of agents.
  • Determining an optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations of agents and calls.
  • The determination must be dependent on a multifactorial optimization of the weighted correspondence between call characteristics and agent characteristics.
  • Controlling concurrent call routing based on the determination.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the background addresses the need for more intelligent switching architectures in telecommunications to move beyond simple routing rules and handle complex processes efficiently (’748 Patent, col. 1:12-2:48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility." This is achieved by representing both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics, each having an "economic utility," and then using these representations to find the best match (’748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The system aims to integrate intelligent, inferential decision-making into the low-level communications management layer itself, rather than relying on a separate high-level system for such analysis (’748 Patent, col. 18:5-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific claims, instead referring to "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" in a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 27). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility based on their respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for a call center that uses a database of agent skills and a database of skill weights to compute an "optimum agent selection" for an incoming communication. The system directly controls the routing of the call based on this determination (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶ 31).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement by reference to a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 36).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where communication classifications and characteristics of potential targets are stored. An optimal target is determined for each communication through a "combinatorial optimization" that considers a cost-benefit analysis, with the system's availability being a potential factor (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶ 40).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement by reference to a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 42).

U.S. Patent No. 8,831,205 - “Intelligent communication routing” (Issued Sep. 9, 2014)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for intelligent communication routing that defines an optimization criterion for matching communication sources with targets. The system performs a "non-trivial combinatorial optimization" to determine a maximum utility pairing based on multiparametric vectors that describe the sources and targets (’205 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶ 46).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement by reference to a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 48).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity selected from a plurality of potential matches. The system performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular second entity unavailable for an alternate match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶ 52).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement by reference to a non-public exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶ 1, et seq.). Instead, it refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as exhibits (Compl. ¶ 16). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of functionality or market context. It makes only conclusory allegations that the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27, 36, 42, 48, 57).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain factual allegations detailing how any specific *Patent Armory Inc v. Google LLC* product infringes the asserted patents. Each count of infringement incorporates by reference a corresponding non-public exhibit containing claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27, 36, 42, 48, 57). As these exhibits are not available, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 31, 40, 46, 52).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be evidentiary. What specific products, services, or functionalities constitute the "Exemplary Defendant Products," and what evidence will be presented to map their operation to the elements of the asserted claims, given the complaint's reliance on non-public exhibits?
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise questions regarding the scope of the patents' claims. For example, does performing a conventional routing algorithm meet the specific requirements of a "multifactorial optimization" (’420 Patent, Claim 1) or maximizing an "aggregate utility" based on "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1) as those terms are defined by the patents?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 Patent

• The Term: "multifactorial optimization"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive step of Claim 1, distinguishing the claimed method from simpler, conventional routing schemes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine the complexity of the process required to infringe, specifically whether it requires a concurrent, multi-variable analysis or if a series of simpler comparisons would suffice.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization as determining an "optimum set of concurrent mutually exclusive associations," which could be argued to broadly cover any system that considers multiple inputs to assign multiple pending calls to multiple available agents simultaneously (’420 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links the optimization to a specific cost-utility function that includes factors like training cost, opportunity cost, and anticipated changes in agent value, suggesting the term may require a specific type of economic modeling rather than any generic multi-factor process (’420 Patent, col. 24:50-65).

For the ’748 Patent

• The Term: "economic utility"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 for both the communication "sources" and "targets" and is the basis for the "aggregate utility" that is maximized. The definition of this term is critical because it dictates what must be measured and predicted by an infringing system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the system may be implemented in a call center and that "productivity alone is the criterion" in some instances, which might support a broader interpretation where "economic utility" could be a simple metric like predicted call duration or sales volume (’748 Patent, col. 24:30-33).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes a more complex cost function where business goals like "customer satisfaction, must be converted and normalized into economic terms," suggesting "economic utility" may require a specific, quantifiable financial or quasi-financial value rather than a simple performance metric (’748 Patent, col. 24:35-40).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. It alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the products in an infringing manner, but references non-public exhibits for the underlying evidence (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26, 34-35, 55-56).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge" of infringement based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but non-public) claim charts. This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 33, 54).

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

• A threshold issue will be one of identification and notice: what specific Google products or services are accused of infringement, and what factual basis supports the conclusory allegation that these unidentified products practice the claimed technology, given the complaint’s reliance on extrinsic, non-public exhibits?
• A central technical question will be one of definitional scope: how will abstract claim concepts such as a "multifactorial optimization" and "economic utility" be construed, and what evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused products perform such specific, computationally-intensive processes rather than more conventional routing methods?
• A key legal question may be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which incorporates its core factual allegations by reference to non-public documents, provide sufficient factual matter to state a claim for patent infringement that is plausible on its face under the Twombly/Iqbal standard?