Patent Armory Inc v. Bill Miller Bar B Q Enterprises Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises, Ltd. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00622, W.D. Tex., 08/22/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology domain is computer-telephony integration, specifically systems that optimize the management of communications in environments like call centers by using economic and skill-based criteria to route interactions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege 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 (’420 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers, where routing calls based on simple first-in, first-out queues can lead to mismatches between a caller's needs and an agent's skills, resulting in problems such as under-skilled or over-skilled agents handling transactions (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by defining data sets for each that represent "inferential targeting parameters" and "characteristic parameters." The system then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:8-23).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for a more dynamic and economically efficient method of routing communications than static, sequential call distribution systems allow (’420 Patent, col. 18:8-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’420 Patent without specifying particular claims (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing respective characteristic parameters for each of a plurality of second entities.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with one of the second entities.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the selected second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 (’748 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations and inefficiencies of conventional call center management and call routing systems (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-4:33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that moves beyond simple address-based routing. It involves representing both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) with predicted characteristics, each having an "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to the characteristics of the sources and destinations (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:9-21).
• Technical Importance: This system provides for intelligent, context-aware routing that aims to maximize overall value or utility rather than simply connecting the next available parties (’748 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 recites a communications routing system with a processor configured to:
  • Represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
  • Determine an optimal routing between the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their respective predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Additional Patents-in-Suit

• U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979: Titled "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing" and issued April 4, 2006, this patent describes a system for routing communications based on a classification of the communication and skill scores of available agents (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system computes an optimal selection to achieve a desired cost-benefit outcome (Compl. ¶11; '979 Patent, Abstract). The complaint asserts infringement by unspecified "Defendant products" (Compl. ¶30).
• U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253: Titled "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing" and issued September 11, 2007, this patent discloses a method for selecting a call handling agent based on characteristics of the call and the call center load (’253 Patent, Abstract). The determination and routing steps are performed on a common platform (Compl. ¶12; '253 Patent, col. 33:1-9). The complaint asserts infringement by unspecified "Defendant products" (Compl. ¶39).
• U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086: Titled "Method and system for matching entities in an auction" and issued September 27, 2016, this patent is related to the '420 Patent and describes a method of matching entities by defining scalar data for their respective parameters and performing an automated optimization based on economic surplus and opportunity cost (’086 Patent, Abstract). The complaint asserts infringement by unspecified "Defendant products" (Compl. ¶13, ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not provide specific product names, services, or methods in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges infringement through products identified in claim charts, which are incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6 through 10 (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50). These exhibits were not provided with the filed complaint. Consequently, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the asserted patents, but it incorporates the substance of its infringement theory by reference to claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). The narrative allegations state in a conclusory manner that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). Without the claim charts or a description of the accused products, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the abstract nature of the patent claims and the lack of detail regarding the accused products, the infringement analysis may raise the following high-level questions:
  • Scope Questions: The asserted patents use broad, conceptual terms such as "entity," "auction," "economic surplus," and "aggregate utility" (’420 Patent, Abstract; ’748 Patent, Abstract). A central point of contention may be whether the functionality of the accused products, once identified, falls within the scope of these terms as construed in light of the patent specifications. For instance, a question for the court may be whether the term "auction," in the context of the ’420 Patent, requires a formal bidding process or can be read more broadly to cover any algorithm that selects a "winner" from a pool of candidates based on competing values.
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be evidentiary. The complaint provides no factual basis to assess how the accused products operate. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems perform the specific optimization and data-representation steps required by the claims, such as "defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data" or "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’420 Patent, cl. 1; ’748 Patent, 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" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core inventive concept of the claim. The definition of what constitutes an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," and how an "optimization" must consider them, will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific type of economic calculation beyond simple technical matching.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimization in general terms, such as optimizing a "cost-utility function," which could be argued to encompass a wide range of value-based decision-making processes (’420 Patent, col. 6:31-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific formulas that include factors like agent cost, training cost, and anticipated transaction value, suggesting a more structured, multi-factorial economic calculation is contemplated (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-50).

For the ’748 Patent

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term defines the objective of the claimed routing system. Its construction will determine whether the accused system's routing logic meets this limitation or performs a different, non-infringing function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "utility" is broad and the specification notes that business goals can include non-economic parameters like "customer satisfaction" (’748 Patent, col. 24:37-40). This could support a construction that covers any system routing communications to achieve a defined business objective.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses detailed cost-function formulas that quantify various factors in economic terms, suggesting that "utility" may require a specific, quantifiable, multi-factor analysis rather than a qualitative goal (’748 Patent, col. 24:52-62).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on knowledge provided by the service of the complaint and its associated (but unattached) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶25, 34, 49). The complaint further alleges that Defendant induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶24, 33, 48). Direct infringement only is alleged for the ’420 and ’253 Patents.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" and that Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge, which could form the basis for a future claim of post-filing willfulness and a request for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 32-33, 47-48).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's complete reliance on non-provided exhibits to identify the accused products and explain the infringement theory, a central question for the case will be what specific functionalities are accused and what evidence Plaintiff will produce to show that these functionalities perform the complex, multi-factor "optimization," "utility maximization," and "auction" processes required by the asserted claims.
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: Can abstract terms such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility," which are described in the patents' context of dynamic call-center management, be construed to cover the functionalities of Defendant's products, which operate in the restaurant industry?
• A key question for the indirect infringement claims will be one of intent: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant, by providing generic product literature, specifically intended for its customers to use the accused products in a manner that satisfies every element of the asserted patent claims, particularly where knowledge of the patents is only alleged as of the filing of the suit?