Patent Armory Inc v. United Rentals Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: United Rentals, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00589, W.D. Tex., 08/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business operations, including its customer communication and equipment rental systems, infringe five patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based matching systems.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for optimizing the matching of incoming communications (e.g., customer calls) with available resources (e.g., service agents) by applying economic and auction-based principles to maximize efficiency and value.
• 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 03/19/2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiencies of conventional call center management, which often struggles to optimally match incoming electronic customer contacts with available agents, leading to poor service quality or inefficient use of a resource (US10237420B1, col. 1:26–2:67). Traditional skill-based routing is identified as complex and often suboptimal, especially in dynamic environments (’420 Patent, col. 5:59–6:53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes applying an economic auction model to this technical problem. It involves defining profiles for both the incoming entity (e.g., a caller) and the target entities (e.g., agents) using "multivalued scalar data." An "automated optimization" is then performed to create a match that maximizes an "economic surplus" while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). This reframes the technical routing problem as an economic optimization problem to be solved algorithmically.
• Technical Importance: The approach sought to move beyond simple, sequential routing rules (like first-in, first-out) toward a global optimization that could simultaneously balance numerous competing factors, such as agent skill, agent cost, caller needs, and overall system throughput (’420 Patent, col. 21:1-22:42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring only to "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15). The following analysis of the first independent claim is presented as a representative example.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method of pairing requests, comprising:
  • estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request;
  • determining a set of available partners, each having at least one respective partner characteristic;
  • evaluating, with at least one automated processor, a plurality of pairings of the request with a plurality of different available partners, according to an evaluator for valuing pairings of the request with respective available partners...; and
  • generating a control signal, by the at least one automated processor, selectively dependent on the evaluating.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method", Issued 11/26/2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this invention addresses the challenge of efficiently routing communications in environments like call centers, where balancing customer satisfaction with operational cost is critical (’748 Patent, col. 1:24–2:50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) based on their predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility" across all potential source-target pairings (’748 Patent, Abstract). This method moves beyond simple rule-based routing to a holistic, utility-based optimization framework, as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1.
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for making dynamic, context-aware routing decisions that can incorporate long-term business goals, such as agent training, rather than focusing solely on immediate efficiency (’748 Patent, col. 27:8–28:41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring only to "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21). The following analysis of the first independent claim is presented as a representative example.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A system for assigning communications, comprising a processor and a memory, configured to associate respective communications with respective resources, wherein the memory has stored therein instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
  • receive a plurality of respective communications;
  • identify a plurality of resources available for association with a respective communication...;
  • calculate a respective score associated with each available resource...;
  • estimate an expected economic value... dependent on at least the score and a respective communication-content dependent value function of an outcome...; and
  • assign each of the plurality of respective communications to one of the plurality of resources based on at least the estimated expected economic value.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing", Issued 04/04/2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an earlier member of the asserted patent family, describes a telephony control system for intelligent call routing. It addresses the problem of matching callers to agents by applying a cost-utility optimization that considers not only agent skills but also factors such as training value and long-term call center operational goals (’979 Patent, col. 23:22–24:50).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are identified in external exhibits not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶30).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing", Issued 09/11/2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the subject matter of the '979 patent, disclosing a communications control system that performs an optimization to route calls. The system determines an optimum agent based on a correspondence between a call classification vector and a table of agent characteristic vectors, with the routing being controlled in dependence on that determination (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are identified in external exhibits not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶39).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction", Issued 09/27/2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the '420 patent, describes a method for matching entities using an auction framework. The method involves defining parameters for a first entity and multiple second entities and performing an automated optimization that considers both the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a second entity unavailable for other matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are identified in external exhibits not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim chart exhibits incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 39, 45). These exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) were not filed with the complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. The infringement allegations against United Rentals, Inc., an equipment rental company, suggest that the accused instrumentalities are the systems and methods it uses for customer service, dispatch, and internal communications, which allegedly perform intelligent routing of communications to company resources.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or specific factual allegations mapping the accused products to the claim elements. Instead, it incorporates by reference external exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which were not provided (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 35-36, 41-42, 50-51). The narrative theory of infringement is summarized below for the lead patents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'420 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s narrative theory suggests that Defendant’s systems for handling customer or internal communications infringe by performing a method of matching requests with resources in a manner that constitutes a claimed "auction" (Compl. Count 1). This infringement is alleged to occur when Defendant's systems automatically evaluate multiple characteristics of an incoming request (e.g., customer need, location) and multiple characteristics of available resources (e.g., agent skill, equipment availability) to determine an optimal pairing. This process is alleged to be the "evaluating" of "pairings" according to an "evaluator" that functions as the claimed method (’420 Patent, Claim 1).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether Defendant's communication routing system performs an "auction" as that term is used in the patent. The analysis may turn on whether any multi-factorial, weighted optimization process can be considered an "auction," or if the term requires a more literal bidding or price-setting mechanism.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence of how Defendant's systems actually operate. A key question for the court will be whether the accused systems perform an "automated optimization" that considers factors analogous to the claimed "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," or if they use a more conventional, non-economic routing logic.

'748 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’748 Patent alleges that Defendant’s communication systems infringe by calculating an "expected economic value" for potential pairings of communications and resources to determine an "optimal routing" (Compl. Count 2). Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant's systems route a customer request, they implicitly or explicitly assign a value to different outcomes and select the routing path that maximizes this value, thereby infringing the claimed method of maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the meaning of "economic utility" and "economic value." The question for the court is whether these terms require a direct monetary component or if they can be construed to encompass non-monetary business metrics like customer satisfaction, agent efficiency, or resource allocation priority.
  • Technical Questions: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's systems "estimate an expected economic value" for routing decisions. A factual question will be what calculations, if any, the accused systems perform beyond basic rule-based routing, and whether those calculations meet the specific elements of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'420 Patent

• The Term: "auction"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory. The patent applies a concept from economics to the technical field of call routing. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claims cover a broad class of multi-factorial optimization algorithms or are limited to systems that implement a more literal bidding or price-clearing mechanism.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process in algorithmic terms, such as performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," suggesting that any system performing such a calculation could be considered an "auction" in the context of the patent (’420 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly references economic concepts like "economic surplus," "bidding," and "game theory," which could support an argument that the term "auction" should be construed more narrowly to require features commonly understood in economic auctions (’420 Patent, col. 21:50–22:42).

'748 Patent

• The Term: "economic utility"
• Context and Importance: The scope of the claims hinges on the definition of this term. A broad definition could read on any routing system that weights different factors, while a narrow definition might require an explicit calculation tied to financial outcomes. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "economic utility" can be satisfied by non-monetary metrics like "customer satisfaction," the patent's potential scope is significantly larger.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that business goals like "customer satisfaction" can be "converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization," indicating that "economic utility" is not limited to direct financial measures (’748 Patent, col. 24:36–42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract frames the invention in terms of "economic utility" and maximizing "aggregate utility," and the specification provides examples tied to "sales volume" and "profit," which could support a construction limiting the term to quantifiable financial metrics (’748 Patent, col. 24:30–36).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner" that allegedly infringes (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 33, 48). The basis for knowledge and intent is alleged to be, at least, the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 49).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, it alleges that Defendant had "actual knowledge" of infringement upon service of the complaint and "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 32-33, 47-48). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in economics, such as "auction" and "economic utility," be construed to cover the multi-factor, algorithmic-based communication routing systems commonly used in modern enterprises, or are they limited to systems that explicitly implement monetary bidding or financial optimization?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the complaint, once supplemented by the referenced exhibits, provide sufficient factual evidence that Defendant's systems perform the specific, multi-step optimization methods required by the claims, or do they employ fundamentally different and non-infringing technical logic for routing communications?
• A central legal question will arise from the pleading sufficiency: given that the complaint provides no specific identification of the accused products and relies entirely on external exhibits for its infringement contentions, a threshold issue may be whether the pleadings meet the plausibility standards required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Twombly/Iqbal precedents.