DCT

6:23-cv-00603

Patent Armory Inc v. Marriott Intl Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00603, W.D. Tex., 08/16/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in Austin, Texas, within the district, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and communication systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching communicating entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call-center systems that move beyond simple queuing to use economic principles and multi-factor analysis to route communications to the most suitable agent, a process critical for optimizing large-scale customer service operations.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit belong to a large, interrelated family with a priority chain extending back to 2003. Several of the patents are continuations or divisionals of earlier applications in the family. The lead patent, U.S. 10,237,420, is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term and could be relevant to potential arguments of obviousness-type double patenting.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for ’979, ’086, and ’420 Patents
2006-04-03 Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2006-04-04 ’979 Patent Issued
2006-03-23 Priority Date for ’253 Patent
2007-09-11 ’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19 ’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 ’748 Patent Issued
2023-08-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued March 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶9).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers that route incoming calls based on simple rules like first-in-first-out or longest-idle-agent. These methods fail to account for the varying skills of agents, leading to mismatches where under-skilled or over-skilled agents handle calls, reducing overall efficiency and throughput. (’420 Patent, col. 4:13-34).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention models the call-routing process as an auction. An incoming communication is treated as a "first entity" and available agents as a "plurality of second entities." Both callers and agents are described by "multivalued scalar data" (i.e., profiles). The system then performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match, considering not only the direct value of a potential pairing (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential calls. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:26-2:24).
    • Technical Importance: This approach applies economic optimization principles to real-time resource allocation in a communications network, aiming to create a more dynamic and efficient matching system than was available with static, rule-based routing. (’420 Patent, col. 2:36-41).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint refers to exemplary claims in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶15); Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
      • 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 their characteristic parameters; and
      • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match and an opportunity cost of unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019. (Compl. ¶10).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Traditional computer telephony integrated (CTI) systems separate low-level call switching functions from high-level management software. This separation can introduce latencies and communication burdens, hindering the ability to perform complex, real-time optimizations for call routing. (’748 Patent, col. 1:50-2:24).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a communications routing system that integrates the intelligence into a lower level of the architecture. The system represents communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their "predicted characteristics" and an associated "economic utility." An "optimal routing" is then determined by "maximizing an aggregate utility" across all available sources and targets, considering the predicted characteristics of each potential pairing. (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:9-25).
    • Technical Importance: By embedding economic-based optimization logic within the communications control layer, the invention aims to reduce transactional load on external CRM systems and enable more responsive, intelligent routing decisions. (’748 Patent, col. 25:10-25).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint refers to exemplary claims in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶21); Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
      • 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; and
      • determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: An earlier patent in the same family, this invention describes a telephony control system that improves upon simple call routing. The system receives a classification for an incoming communication, consults a database of agent skills and skill weights, computes an "optimum agent selection," and directly controls the routing of the call based on that computation. (’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement. (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007. (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications control system for intelligent call routing. It comprises an input for receiving a "call classification vector," a data table of "agent characteristic vectors," and a processor that determines an "optimum agent selection" based on the correspondence between the call and agent vectors to control routing. (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement. (Compl. ¶39).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016. (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: Pre-dating the ’420 Patent in the same family, this patent also claims a method for matching entities in an auction context. It describes defining profile data for a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) and multiple "second entities" (e.g., agents) and performing an "automated optimization" based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other matches. (’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement. (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim-chart exhibits. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" these products and by "having its employees internally test and use" them. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations. It alleges direct infringement of all five patents-in-suit by the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 35-36, 41-42, 50-51). The complaint contains no factual allegations describing how any specific feature of a Marriott product or service meets any specific limitation of the asserted patent claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The core of the patents-in-suit is the use of specific economic and optimization models for routing. The complaint provides no factual basis to suggest that Marriott’s customer service systems perform the claimed "automated optimization" based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent) or maximize an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent). A central question will be whether discovery reveals that Marriott's systems employ such specific algorithms or use more conventional routing logic (e.g., based on queue length or agent idle time).
    • Scope Questions: The patents frame communication routing in the language of economic auctions and utility maximization. A key legal question will be how broadly these terms can be construed. The analysis may question whether standard business metrics used in the hospitality industry can be considered equivalent to the specific "economic utility" or "economic surplus" required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "automated optimization" (from the ’420 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central active step in the method claimed by the ’420 Patent. Its construction will be critical in determining whether a defendant's routing system, which may select a "best" agent based on certain rules, performs the specific type of optimization claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether conventional rule-based routing systems fall within the claims or if the claims are limited to systems that solve a specific type of economic maximization problem.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal as finding the agent with the "best match of skills" and mentions optimizing for "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable." (’420 Patent, col. 4:3-12). This language may support a construction covering any automated process that selects an agent to achieve a business goal.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself requires the "automated optimization" to be performed "with respect to an economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." (’420 Patent, col. 20:53-62). The abstract also explicitly links the optimization to these economic concepts, which may support a narrower construction requiring the system to specifically calculate these values.

  • The Term: "economic utility" (from the ’748 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: The ’748 Patent requires determining an optimal routing by maximizing an "aggregate utility" based on the "economic utility" of sources and targets. The definition of "economic utility" will be dispositive. A dispute may arise over whether this term requires a quantifiable, monetary-based value or if it can encompass qualitative business goals.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that some business goals, such as "customer satisfaction," must be "converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization." (’748 Patent, col. 24:36-40). This could suggest that "economic utility" is a broad concept that can represent non-monetary objectives.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses normalizing disparate factors into a common metric of "cost" to allow for numeric analysis and optimization. (’748 Patent, col. 23:20-24). This focus on quantitative, cost-based analysis may support a narrower construction requiring a calculated monetary or cost value rather than a general business preference.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on the claim that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 33, 48). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date of service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25, 32, 34, 47, 49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful." It does, however, plead "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for three of the five patents, with knowledge allegedly established by the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 47). These allegations could form the basis for a subsequent claim of post-filing willful infringement. No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint is devoid of factual allegations tying any Marriott product to the patent claims. A key question is whether discovery will produce evidence that Marriott's systems technically operate in the specific manner claimed, or if the suit is based on a high-level functional analogy that cannot support infringement.
  • A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on whether claim terms drawn from economic theory, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "economic utility," can be construed broadly enough to cover the conventional business and performance metrics used to manage customer service operations in the hospitality industry.
  • A further question will be one of technological implementation: The patents describe a sophisticated, integrated architecture for performing real-time optimizations. A key point of contention will be whether Marriott's systems, which may be assembled from various third-party and legacy components, actually perform the integrated, low-level processing and "multifactorial optimization" required by the claims, or if they rely on simpler, non-infringing methods.