Patent Armory Inc v. Best Western Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Best Western International, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00593, W.D. Tex., 08/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for customer communication and service infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to automated call distribution and resource allocation systems, commonly used in call centers to efficiently route customer inquiries to appropriate service agents.
• 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 the inefficiencies of traditional call centers, where simple "first-come-first-served" routing fails to account for agent skill levels or the specific needs of a caller, leading to suboptimal resource allocation (US 10,237,420 B1, col. 1:44-2:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a service agent) by performing an "automated optimization." This optimization considers not only the direct value of a potential match (termed "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches, thereby aiming for a more globally efficient allocation of resources (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:35-6:3).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond simple, sequential queuing to a more dynamic, multifactorial system that seeks to maximize the overall economic utility of a communications system, such as a call center (’420 Patent, col. 21:4-22:15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’420 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶ 15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • 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 and characteristic parameters for each of the second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match.
  • The optimization also considers 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. 10,491,748 - Intelligent communication routing system and method

Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of routing communications efficiently where both the sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) have diverse characteristics and associated economic values (’748 Patent, Abstract).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system that represents the predicted characteristics of both communication sources and targets, each having an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing between them by "maximizing an aggregate utility," which accounts for the respective characteristics of both the source and the destination (’748 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This system provides a framework for intelligent routing that is not limited to telephony, applying to any system where sources and targets with varying attributes need to be matched to maximize a defined utility (’748 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’748 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶ 21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing method.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

Issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an ancestor to others in the suit, describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It discloses a system that receives a communication classification and uses a database of agent skills and skill weights to compute an optimal agent selection, directly controlling the routing of the call (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶ 30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Defendant products" identified in charts incorporated by reference into Count 3 (Compl. ¶ 30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing

Issued September 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a communications system where an optimal target for a communication is determined through a combinatorial optimization. The optimization considers the classification of the communication, the characteristics of potential targets, and a cost-benefit analysis, with the system having the ability to predict the availability of a target as another optimization factor (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶ 39).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Defendant products" identified in charts incorporated by reference into Count 4 (Compl. ¶ 39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Method and system for matching entities in an auction

Issued September 27, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a direct ancestor of the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for each and performing an automated optimization. The optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for an alternate match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶ 45).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Defendant products" identified in charts incorporated by reference into Count 5 (Compl. ¶ 45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶ 15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges infringement through charts that are incorporated by reference as exhibits but are not provided with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). These charts are said to compare the patent claims to the accused products. As the defendant is Best Western International, Inc., the accused products likely relate to its customer reservation and service systems, such as its website, mobile application, and call center infrastructure. However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific products or their functionality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all five patents-in-suit but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support these claims. Instead, it incorporates by reference claim charts provided as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27, 36, 42, 51). The complaint’s narrative theory is that "[a]s set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the [asserted patent]" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary [asserted patent] Claims" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). Without access to these exhibits, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of the lead patents and the nature of the defendant's business, the infringement analysis may raise the following questions:

• Scope Questions: The asserted patents use terms such as "auction" and "economic surplus" to describe the process of matching communications with agents (’420 Patent, Abstract). A likely point of contention is whether Best Western's automated call-routing system, which may not involve explicit monetary bids, constitutes an "auction" that optimizes an "economic surplus" within the meaning of the claims.
• Technical Questions: The claims require performing a "multifactorial optimization" that considers not only direct skill matching but also factors like "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, claim 1) or maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, claim 1). A key technical question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused systems perform such a complex optimization, as opposed to more conventional skills-based or load-balancing routing algorithms.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "auction" (from Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the ’420 and ’086 Patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because a hotel chain's call center does not operate like a traditional auction with explicit bidding. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to processes involving formal bids or can be construed more broadly to encompass any system that allocates a limited resource (an agent) to a competing demand (a caller) based on optimizing a set of parameters.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the "auction" in the context of routing communications based on both "economic factors and non-economic factors," and notes that the "auction may be economic or non-economic" (’420 Patent, col. 47:4-10). This language could support a construction that does not require monetary bids.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly references economic concepts like "bidding," "payment," "first or second price," and "commission based system," which could support a narrower construction tied to processes with explicit economic transactions (’420 Patent, col. 46:15-55).

The Term: "economic surplus" (from Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent)

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the accused system performs the claimed "automated optimization." The dispute will likely be whether "economic surplus" requires a quantifiable monetary gain or can encompass non-monetary metrics of efficiency, such as reduced call time, increased customer satisfaction, or a better "cost-benefit outcome" (’420 Patent, col. 37:25-28).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimizing a "cost-utility function" that considers disparate factors normalized into a common metric of "cost," including non-monetary goals like customer satisfaction and agent training (’420 Patent, col. 23:36-24:24). This may support construing "economic surplus" to include non-monetary measures of utility.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract frames the invention around "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," terms with specific meanings in economics. A defendant may argue that these terms, used together, require the optimization to be based on quantifiable financial values, not just abstract utility.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's continued sale of the accused products and distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" after receiving notice of infringement via the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 33-34, 48-49).

Willful Infringement

The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant's continued infringement after being served with the complaint and its associated claim charts is knowing and intentional (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 47). The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶ N.i.).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent terms "auction" and "economic surplus," which have specific economic meanings, be construed to cover the automated processes of a hotel chain’s customer call routing system, which may not involve explicit monetary bidding?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of factual support: given the complaint's reliance on external exhibits that were not provided, what specific evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the claimed "multifactorial optimization"—considering factors like opportunity costs and aggregate utility—as distinct from more conventional forms of skills-based routing?