Patent Armory Inc v. Radisson Hospitality Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Radisson Hospitality, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00604, W.D. Tex., 08/16/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and booking systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching communications with service agents.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to optimizing the operation of large-scale communication centers by using economic and performance-based data to route incoming communications to the most appropriate agent.
• 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. The family of patents asserted has been the subject of divisional and continuation applications.

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 section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, particularly with "skill-based routing" of incoming calls. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 3:35-4:13). Problems identified include routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, and the inflexibility of organizing agents into static teams, which reduces transactional throughput. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 4:35-5:19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as a type of auction. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, Abstract). The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the skill-based fit but also the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for a different, potentially more valuable, future call. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 21:3-22:52). This dynamic, economic-based approach aims to replace simpler "longest-idle-agent" or first-in, first-out routing schemes. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 4:14-20).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call distribution to a dynamic, economic optimization model intended to globally maximize call center efficiency over time. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 27:9-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, referring to "exemplary claims" in an unattached exhibit. (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶15).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the background describes the challenge of efficiently routing electronic communications in a call center to balance customer service quality with resource utilization. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 1:26-34). It notes that traditional systems often separate low-level switching functions from high-level "intelligent" tasks, creating potential latencies and inefficiencies. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 2:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an architectural change where intelligent routing decisions are made at a "relatively low level within the communications management architecture" itself, rather than by a separate high-level system. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 18:25-33). This integrated system uses an algorithm to resolve the target of a communication in real-time by interpreting high-level definitions contextually, rather than routing to a predetermined, fixed address. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 17:10-21).
• Technical Importance: This integration of intelligent, algorithmic routing into the low-level communication server aims to reduce latency and transactional load on external management systems, allowing for more dynamic and responsive call handling. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 25:50-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification. (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications routing system, and method, for 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; and
  • determining an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination represented by linkages.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶21).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing, Issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of routing calls in a call center by proposing an intelligent control system. The solution involves a processor that computes an optimal agent selection based on a "multivariate cost function" that compares characteristics of the call with characteristics of available agents, and then directly controls the routing of the call. (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. (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, Issued September 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, describes a communications system where an optimal target for a communication is determined through a "combinatorial optimization." The system considers characteristics of the communication and of potential targets, and may include a cost-benefit analysis. The optimization is based on information representing characteristics of at least three potential targets. (U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. (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, Issued September 27, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, a parent to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining scalar data for a "first entity" (e.g., caller) and multiple "second entities" (e.g., agents). It then performs an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making one of the second entities unavailable for an alternate match. (U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" of infringement. (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name specific accused products, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶15). Given that the defendant is Patent Armory Inc v. Radisson Hospitality Inc, these instrumentalities are presumably Radisson's customer booking systems, call centers, and related hospitality service platforms.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges in a conclusory manner that Defendant's products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). No details are provided regarding how these systems operate, their architecture, or their specific features related to routing customer inquiries.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific factual basis for these allegations by reference to Exhibits 6 through 10, which are described as claim charts but were not filed with the public complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 35, 41, 50). Consequently, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The following summarizes the narrative infringement theory and identifies potential points of contention.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'420 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe by matching customer inquiries with service agents in a manner that practices the claimed auction-based optimization method. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17). This suggests an allegation that Radisson's systems do more than simple first-come, first-served routing and instead use a multifactorial analysis that considers economic outcomes and opportunity costs when directing a customer to an agent.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Radisson’s customer service system performs an "auction" as that term is understood in the patent. The analysis may focus on whether the system merely performs skill-based matching or if it conducts a competitive optimization that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, cl. 1).
  • Technical Questions: The dispute may turn on what evidence exists that Radisson's system calculates an "opportunity cost" associated with making an agent unavailable for a different, future communication, as required by the claim. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, cl. 1).

'748 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe by implementing an intelligent communication routing system that determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility." (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 26). The core of this allegation is that Radisson's system uses predictive characteristics of both the customer and the available service options to calculate and maximize an "economic utility" for each potential pairing.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of contention is whether Radisson's systems determine routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" that represents "economic utility," as claimed. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, cl. 1). The defense may argue its system uses simpler, non-economic routing rules.
  • Technical Questions: It raises the evidentiary question of whether Defendant's systems actually represent communications sources and targets using "predicted characteristics" and then perform a maximization calculation to determine routing, or if they operate on a different technical principle. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '420 Patent:

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: This phrase is the central functional step of the independent claim. The definition of what constitutes an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost" in the context of call routing, and what type of calculation qualifies as an "automated optimization," will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific, sophisticated form of economic modeling beyond simple skill-matching.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "economic surplus" in general terms, such as the outcome of a transaction, and notes that factors like "customer satisfaction" can be "normalized into economic terms." (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 24:36-40). This could support a broader reading that covers any system optimizing for business goals.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of an "auction." (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, Title, Abstract, col. 22:45-51). The detailed discussion of various cost factors (agent cost, connection cost, anticipated outcome, opportunity cost) suggests a specific, multi-part calculation is required, potentially narrowing the term to systems that explicitly model and weigh these specific economic variables. (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 24:1-50).

For the '748 Patent:

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core decision-making logic of the claimed invention. The case will likely depend on whether the accused system's routing logic can be characterized as a "maximization" of an "aggregate utility" based on "predicted" characteristics.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "target of a communication is defined by an algorithm, rather than a predetermined address or simple rule," and that this algorithm is "evaluated in real time." (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 18:15-21). This could support a broad interpretation covering any dynamic, algorithm-based routing system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires maximizing an "aggregate utility" where both sources and targets have a predicted "economic utility." (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, cl. 1). The detailed description explains this in terms of cost functions that normalize disparate factors into a common "cost" metric for numeric analysis, suggesting a more limited scope requiring explicit economic modeling and maximization. (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 23:59-24:22).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 49). The allegations state 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).
• Willful Infringement: While the word "willful" is not used, the complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32, 47). This knowledge is alleged to arise from the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts. There are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or the alleged infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent terms "auction," "economic surplus," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," which are described in the context of complex economic modeling, be construed to cover the routing and agent-assignment functions of a conventional hospitality booking and customer service system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will emerge in discovery to show that Defendant’s systems perform the specific, multi-factor optimizations and cost-benefit calculations required by the asserted claims, as opposed to employing more conventional skill-based or rule-based routing logic?
• A third question concerns damages and intent: given that the allegations of knowledge are based entirely on the filing of the lawsuit itself, the dispute may focus on whether Plaintiff can establish the requisite intent for indirect infringement and whether any potential damages could be enhanced without evidence of pre-suit willfulness.