Patent Armory Inc v. CEC Entertainment Concepts LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: CEC Entertainment Concepts, L.P. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00693, W.D. Tex., 10/03/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent communication routing and auction-based systems for matching entities, such as in a call center environment.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to sophisticated call center management technologies, which are critical for optimizing customer service and operational efficiency in large-scale telecommunications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings concerning 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 Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers, which struggle to balance high-quality customer service with the efficient use of resources, particularly in routing inbound calls to the most appropriate agent ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-34). Problems like the "under-skilled agent" and "over-skilled agent" reduce transactional throughput when calls are not matched optimally ('420 Patent, col. 4:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as a type of auction, matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) ('420 Patent, Abstract). It does this by performing an automated optimization that considers not only the best skill-based match but also economic factors like "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential calls ('420 Patent, col. 21:5-14, Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond simple "longest-idle" or static skill-based routing by introducing dynamic, economic-based decision-making directly into the low-level communications switching architecture ('420 Patent, col. 18:7-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification, incorporating by reference an external Exhibit 6 which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity from a plurality of second entities.
  • 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 second entities, representing their characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the matched second entity for 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" (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent: the inefficiencies and suboptimal agent matching inherent in conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) systems ('748 Patent, col. 2:26-34). It notes that traditional systems fail to account for dynamic factors and long-term call center goals ('748 Patent, col. 27:8-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "intelligent switching architecture" that integrates complex, inferential routing decisions into the low-level communications server ('748 Patent, col. 1:12-14). Rather than routing to a fixed address, the system routes to a target defined by an algorithm that is evaluated in real-time, considering factors like agent skills, agent costs, predicted call outcomes, and even the value of on-the-job training ('748 Patent, col. 23:1-24:14, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By embedding the intelligent control algorithms within the communications management system itself, the invention aims to reduce latency and bandwidth requirements associated with querying separate high-level management systems for routing decisions ('748 Patent, col. 25:46-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification, incorporating by reference an external Exhibit 7 which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • A communications routing system comprising a processor and memory.
  • 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.
  • Determining an optimal routing between sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing" (Issued Apr. 4, 2006)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued Apr. 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It describes using a database of agent skill scores and a database of skill weights corresponding to a communication's classification to compute an optimal agent selection for routing the communication ('979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" are asserted (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an external Exhibit 8, without further specification (Compl. ¶30, ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing" (Issued Sep. 11, 2007)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued Sep. 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, describes a telephony control system that determines an optimal agent for a call based on a multifactorial optimization. The optimization considers the weighted correspondence between the call's classification characteristics and the agent's characteristics ('253 Patent, col. 59:5-20).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" are asserted (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an external Exhibit 9, without further specification (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction" (Issued Sep. 27, 2016)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," Issued Sep. 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by performing an automated optimization. The system considers both economic factors (e.g., compensating for suboptimal profile matching) and non-economic factors (e.g., the optimality of a profile match) derived from an auction to determine routing ('086 Patent, Fig. 7).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" are asserted (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an external Exhibit 10, without further specification (Compl. ¶45, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name in the body of the filing (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 30, 39, 45). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in Exhibits 6-10, which were incorporated by reference but not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 35, 41, 50). However, it does not include any claim charts in the body of the complaint or as filed exhibits. Instead, it incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not provided. No narrative infringement theory is presented to explain how the accused products allegedly meet the claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: A primary question will be what specific products are accused and how they function. The complaint's reliance on unfiled exhibits creates a complete factual vacuum regarding the accused technology.
• Scope Questions: For the '420 and '086 Patents, a key legal and technical question may be whether the defendant's routing or matching systems perform an "auction" as that term is used and defined in the patents. Similarly, for the '420 and 10,491,748 Patents, a dispute may arise over whether the accused systems calculate an "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," or "aggregate utility" as required by the claims, or whether they use different, non-infringing optimization criteria.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "auction" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is not a standard term of art in telecommunications routing and appears central to the patent’s novelty. Its definition will be critical to determining infringement, as the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant's system "conducts series of auctions" ('420 Patent, col. 31:13-14) or performs a process that meets the patent's definition of an auction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an auction can be sensitive to both "economic factors and non-economic factors," potentially broadening its scope beyond a simple monetary bid system ('420 Patent, col. 11:9-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "auction" to economic concepts like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," suggesting the term may be limited to systems that perform specific economic calculations rather than any generic process of competitive selection ('420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:1-4).

The Term: "economic surplus" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is another unconventional term for a patent in this technical field, and its construction will likely be disputed. The infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused product's optimization algorithm can be shown to calculate a value corresponding to the patent's specific definition of "economic surplus."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization as being performed "with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match," directly linking the optimization step to this economic calculation ('420 Patent, Abstract). This may support a narrow construction requiring a specific type of economic value determination.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on knowledge provided by the service of the complaint itself and on the defendant allegedly distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶24-25, 33-34, 48-49).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 Patents, it pleads "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on "the service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 47). This allegation of post-suit knowledge could form the basis for a later claim of willful infringement for any infringing acts occurring after the complaint was filed.

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

• A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which identifies neither the accused products nor the asserted claims and offers no factual basis for infringement beyond incorporating unfiled external exhibits, satisfy the plausibility standards required by federal pleading rules?
• A central dispute will be one of definitional scope: can economic terms of art used in the patent claims, such as "auction" and "economic surplus," be construed to read on the technical operations of Defendant's communication routing systems, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's economic-based framework and the accused technology's functionality?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: once the accused products are identified, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that these systems perform the specific, multi-step optimization methods required by the claims, particularly the consideration of "opportunity cost" and the maximization of "aggregate utility"?