Patent Armory Inc v. United Services Automobile Association

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: United Services Automobile Association (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00124, W.D. Tex., 03/07/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology domain is computer-telephony integration (CTI), specifically the optimization of routing communications in environments like call centers to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
• Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	Priority Date for ’979 and ’253 Patents
2003-03-07	Priority Date for ’420 and ’086 Patents
2006-04-03	Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2006-04-04	’979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11	’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27	’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19	’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26	’748 Patent Issued
2024-03-07	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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiencies of conventional call center management systems, which often rely on simple "first-come-first-served" or static "queue/team" models for routing customer calls to agents ('420 Patent, col. 2:42-52). Even more advanced "skills-based" routing presents complex scheduling and resource allocation challenges ('420 Patent, col. 5:60-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as a dynamic auction. It matches a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" of the match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential callers ('420 Patent, Abstract). The system uses data vectors representing caller needs and agent characteristics to find an optimal pairing that maximizes overall value for the call center ('420 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static routing rules to a dynamic, economic optimization model for allocating call center resources in real-time.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶17-18). Independent method claim 1 is representative of the core technology.

• Claim 1 Elements:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity;
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters; 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 states that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of balancing competing goals in a call center, such as providing high-quality customer service while making efficient use of resources ('748 Patent, col. 2:28-34). It notes the limitations of systems that do not account for long-term operational goals, such as agent training, when making routing decisions ('748 Patent, col. 24:10-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, Abstract). The system's optimization can be configured for short-term efficiency (e.g., when the call center is near capacity) or for long-term goals, such as agent training, by optimizing a "cost-utility function for long term call center operation" ('748 Patent, Fig. 1). This involves considering factors like the expected costs and utilities of agents, trainers, and training itself ('748 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The technology allows call centers to implement more sophisticated routing strategies that balance immediate performance with long-term objectives like workforce development.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶26-27). Independent system claim 1 is representative of the core technology.

• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A communications routing system comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing instructions 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; and
  • determine an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

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

• Technology Synopsis: An early patent in the asserted family, it discloses a communications management system that receives a communication classification and uses a database of agent skills to compute and control an optimal routing assignment. The invention focuses on performing this intelligent routing within the telephony control system itself to improve efficiency.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Exemplary Defendant Products" generally, without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '979 Patent and describes a system for intelligent call routing based on a combinatorial optimization. It discloses determining an optimum target for a communication based on the characteristics of the communication and the potential targets.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Exemplary Defendant Products" generally, without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶36).

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

• Technology Synopsis: An ancestor to the '420 Patent, this patent discloses a method for matching entities by performing an automated optimization based on an economic surplus and opportunity cost. The core concept is the use of an auction-based model to allocate resources, such as call center agents.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Exemplary Defendant Products" generally, without identifying specific features (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any of Defendant's products or services by name. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" throughout the infringement counts (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It makes only conclusory statements that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts contained in Exhibits 6 through 10, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶18, 27, 33, 39, 48). The narrative infringement theory is limited to conclusory statements that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (e.g., Compl. ¶17). Without the claim charts or a more detailed factual narrative, a tabular summary of the infringement allegations cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint’s lack of factual detail regarding the operation of the accused products raises a threshold question of whether it provides sufficient notice of the basis for the infringement claims. A central point of contention may be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s systems perform the specific optimization and utility-maximization functions required by the claims, rather than employing more conventional rules-based routing.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether Defendant’s systems actually perform an "automated optimization" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as taught in the ’420 Patent, or whether they "maximize an aggregate utility" as taught in the ’748 Patent. The analysis will require a detailed examination of the algorithms and data inputs used by the accused systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" ('420 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the central inventive concept of the '420 Patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the logic used in Defendant's systems can be characterized as this specific type of economic optimization. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than simple rules-based routing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimization in general terms, such as seeking a "global minimization of the cost function" or optimizing a "cost-benefit outcome," which could support a construction not strictly tied to formal auction mechanics ('420 Patent, col. 4:10-12; Fig. 4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the optimization may include specific economic factors such as agent salaries, training costs, and the potential revenue from a transaction, suggesting a narrower construction tied to quantifiable financial metrics ('420 Patent, col. 24:1-52).

"maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core functionality of the routing system claimed in the '748 Patent. The dispute will likely center on whether Defendant's system performs a true mathematical maximization of a utility function or a less complex form of routing that merely considers various factors.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background discusses balancing "competing goals" such as service quality and efficiency, which could be argued to be a form of utility maximization in a general sense ('748 Patent, col. 2:28-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific "cost-utility" functions and diagrams that include inputs for "expected incremental cost of agent," "expected incremental utility of agent," and "expected incremental training utility," which could support a narrower construction requiring a multi-factor quantitative analysis ('748 Patent, Fig. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. These allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents since the service of the complaint and on the distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶24-25, 45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it pleads "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts, which could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶23, 44).

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent terms "automated optimization," "economic surplus," and "maximizing an aggregate utility," which are described in the patents in the context of complex, multi-factor economic models, be construed to cover the routing logic of Defendant's accused systems?
• A key procedural and evidentiary question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings. Given that the complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement without identifying specific accused products by name or providing the referenced claim charts, an initial focus of the case may be on whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief.
• A core technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused instrumentality's routing logic operate based on simple, predefined rules (e.g., conventional skill-based routing), or does it perform the multi-step, dynamic, and economically-grounded optimization that considers factors like opportunity costs and aggregate utility as required by the asserted claims?