Patent Armory Inc v. Tripcom Group Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Trip.com Group Limited (Cayman Islands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00606, W.D. Tex., 08/16/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and communication routing systems infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based matching of entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced systems for routing communications in environments like call centers, moving beyond simple queuing to complex optimizations based on economic and skill-based factors.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: 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 inefficiency of traditional call center routing systems, which often use simple first-in, first-out queues or basic skill assignments. These methods can result in suboptimal pairings, such as routing a call to an over-skilled or under-skilled agent, which reduces transactional throughput and customer satisfaction (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) to a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) as a dynamic, real-time auction. The system performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the suitability of a match but also its "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of making that specific second entity unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:1-24). This allows the system to make a globally optimized decision rather than a simple sequential one.
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static queuing and routing rules to a dynamic, economic model for allocating communication resources in real time, aiming to improve overall system efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 5:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for a first entity representing "inferential targeting parameters."
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities representing their "characteristic parameters."
  • Performing an automated optimization of a match with respect to an "economic surplus."
  • The optimization also considers an "opportunity cost" related to the unavailability of the matched second entity for an alternate first entity.
• 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of optimally routing communications between sources (e.g., customers) and targets (e.g., service agents) in a way that maximizes overall system value, a problem not adequately solved by simple routing rules (’748 Patent, Abstract; ’420 Patent, col. 2:26-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communications routing system that models the problem economically. It represents both communication "sources" and "targets" with predicted characteristics, each having an "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" across all potential linkages, effectively creating the most valuable set of pairings for the system as a whole (’748 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for system-level optimization of communication resources by quantifying the value of potential connections and seeking to maximize the total value generated.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A communications routing system for representing predicted characteristics of communication sources, each having an "economic utility."
  • Representing predicted characteristics of communication targets, each also having an "economic utility."
  • Determining an optimal routing between the sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to their 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: The patent addresses inefficient call routing by proposing a system that receives a "communications classification," consults a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an optimal agent selection based on a cost-benefit analysis to directly control call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30), referencing an unprovided exhibit. Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are available for assertion.
• Accused Features: The complaint generically accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" that allegedly perform intelligent, optimized call routing (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 invention describes an intelligent call routing system that determines an optimum agent by performing a "multivariate cost function" analysis comparing at least three agents. The system considers both call classification information and agent characteristics to control the routing (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶39), referencing an unprovided exhibit. Independent claims 1 and 12 are available for assertion.
• Accused Features: The complaint generically accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" that allegedly perform intelligent, optimized call routing (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: This patent discloses a method for matching entities by defining "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for a plurality of second entities. An automated optimization is then performed with respect to the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a second entity unavailable for other matches, framing the matching process as an auction (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶45), referencing an unprovided exhibit. Independent claims 1 and 12 are available for assertion.
• Accused Features: The complaint generically accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" that allegedly perform auction-based or optimized matching of entities (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name, referring to them collectively as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶39, ¶45). Given the Defendant is Trip.com Group Limited, these products are presumably the customer service platforms and communication routing systems used by the online travel agency.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50). This implies the products perform intelligent, optimized routing of customer communications to service agents based on a variety of parameters, allegedly including economic factors like utility, surplus, and opportunity cost. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' actual functionality or market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that compare the asserted patent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶35, ¶41, ¶50). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the asserted patents by making, using, selling, or offering for sale systems that satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶39, ¶45). The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's customer service and communication systems employ sophisticated, optimization-based routing that goes beyond simple queuing. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges these systems match customers with agents by performing optimizations that consider economic factors such as surplus and opportunity cost (’420 Patent, ’086 Patent) and that seek to maximize an aggregate, system-wide utility (’748 Patent, ’979 Patent, ’253 Patent), thereby practicing the claimed inventions.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the scope of terms like "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "maximizing an aggregate utility." A question for the court will be whether these terms, as defined by the patents, can be construed to read on the specific cost-function and routing algorithms allegedly used in Defendant’s commercial systems.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details about how the accused products operate. A key question for discovery will be what evidence exists that Defendant's routing systems perform the specific economic optimizations and system-wide utility maximization required by the claims, as opposed to employing more conventional, non-infringing methods like heuristic-based or simple skill-based routing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (from the ’420 and ’086 Patents)

• Context and Importance: The definition of these economic terms is critical to the infringement analysis for two of the asserted patents. The dispute may turn on whether these terms require a specific, formal auction-based calculation or can be interpreted more broadly to cover any algorithm that balances the value of a given match against the cost of forgoing other potential matches.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses these concepts in general economic terms, referring to balancing competing goals and making "efficient use of call center resources," which may support a broader construction (’420 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific formulas and describes auction-based embodiments, such as a "second price" auction, which could be cited to argue that the terms should be limited to the structures disclosed in those specific examples (’420 Patent, col. 46:15-32).

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from the ’748 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the ’748 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused system must perform a global, combinatorial optimization across all possible pairings, or whether a series of localized "best match" decisions could be considered to "maximize" an "aggregate" utility.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract broadly describes "maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics," which could support a construction covering any system that aims for the best overall outcome based on available data (’748 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The related ’420 Patent, which shares a specification, describes complex multi-factor cost functions that include variables for anticipated value, opportunity cost, and changes in agent value, suggesting "aggregate utility" is not a simple metric but a complex, multi-part calculation (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-58).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis for this allegation is that, post-filing, Defendant continued to "distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶33, ¶48).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but lays a foundation for post-suit willfulness. It alleges that the service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement and that Defendant has continued its allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶32-33, ¶47-48).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific technical allegations about how Defendant's products operate, the case will depend on whether discovery uncovers evidence that Trip.com's routing systems perform the sophisticated, economic-based optimizations described in the patents, rather than more conventional call center technologies.
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the patent claims, which use abstract economic concepts like "opportunity cost," "economic surplus," and "aggregate utility," be construed broadly enough to cover the functionalities of a modern, large-scale commercial customer service platform, or will they be narrowed to the specific formulas and auction embodiments disclosed in the patent specifications?
• A preliminary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: The complaint’s reliance on the generic term "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming a single product or describing its operation raises the question of whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.