Patent Armory Inc v. Dell Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Dell Technologies Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00180, W.D. Tex., 04/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for managing customer communications infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center management systems that move beyond simple routing rules to employ complex optimization algorithms for matching incoming communications with available agents.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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: March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiencies of traditional call centers, which typically use simple "first-in, first-out" or static "queue/team" models for routing calls (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 3:36-50). These approaches can lead to problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, creating inequitable call distribution, and failing to adapt to changing call volumes and types (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-5:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a caller to an agent as a type of auction (’420 Patent, col. 1:1-4). It uses an automated optimization process that considers "multivalued scalar data" for both the caller (e.g., needs, language) and the available agents (e.g., skills, cost) (’420 Patent, Abstract). This optimization is performed with respect to an "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches, moving beyond simple routing to a dynamic, economic-based allocation system (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:4-8).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for more dynamic and economically efficient call center management by treating agent time as a resource to be allocated based on calculated value rather than simple availability (’420 Patent, col. 23:23-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "exemplary method claims" identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Estimating a content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request.
  • Determining a set of available partners, each having a respective partner characteristic.
  • Evaluating, with an automated processor, a plurality of pairings of the request with different available partners according to an evaluator.
  • The evaluator values pairings based on a probabilistic function of the request characteristic and the partner characteristic.
  • Generating a control signal based on the evaluation.
• 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: November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the same general problem space as the ’420 Patent: the limitations of conventional call center routing and the need for more intelligent, adaptive systems (’748 Patent, col. 1:44-2:48).
• The Patented Solution: This invention describes a routing system and method based on maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). It involves representing both communication sources (e.g., callers) and communication targets (e.g., agents) by their predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by maximizing the aggregate utility of all matches, creating a system-wide optimization rather than a series of individual best-fit decisions (’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 36:5-13).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for holistic call center optimization, valuing not just individual pairings but the overall economic efficiency of the entire system's routing decisions at a given moment (’748 Patent, col. 36:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Claim 1 is a representative independent claim.
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a plurality of communications for routing to a plurality of agents.
  • Predicting characteristics for each communication.
  • Representing characteristics for each agent.
  • Determining an optimal routing between communications and agents by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the 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: April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11)
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. The system receives a communication classification, accesses a database of agent skills and skill weights, and uses a processor to compute an optimum agent selection based on those inputs, directly controlling the call routing (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: Defendant’s systems for routing customer communications (Compl. ¶30).

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

• Issued: September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12)
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system and method where multiple communications are received and classified, characteristics of potential targets (agents) are stored, and an optimum target for each communication is determined in a combinatorial optimization. The optimization considers factors such as a cost-benefit analysis and predicted agent availability (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: Defendant’s systems for routing customer communications (Compl. ¶36).

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 describes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) selected from a plurality of available agents. The matching is based on an automated optimization of the "economic surplus" of a given match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: Defendant’s systems for routing customer communications (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Defendant products" that are purportedly detailed in external claim chart exhibits, which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶21, ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities are Defendant's systems and methods for handling customer communications, such as those used in its sales and technical support call centers (Compl. ¶15, ¶21). The functionality at issue is the automated process by which Defendant routes incoming communications to its agents. The complaint contains no specific allegations regarding the products’ market positioning beyond their use in Defendant's business operations.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or claim charts in its body. For each of the five asserted patents, it incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the patent claims and the general nature of the accused functionality. The core allegation appears to be that Defendant's call-center infrastructure, which matches customer inquiries with support or sales agents, performs the patented methods of intelligent, criteria-based routing.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the terminology of the patents, particularly terms like "auction" (’420 Patent, Claim 1), "economic surplus" (’420 Patent, Abstract), and "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract), can be construed to read on the functionality of Defendant's call routing systems. The court may need to determine if these terms require a formal, value-based market mechanism for routing calls, or if they can broadly cover more conventional routing logic that implicitly optimizes for factors like wait time or agent skill.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what algorithms Defendant’s systems actually use to route communications. The complaint provides no evidence on this point. The analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant's systems perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" (’420 Patent, Claim 1) and "combinatorial optimization" (’253 Patent, Abstract) required by the claims, or if they employ simpler, non-infringing logic such as routing to the next available agent or the longest-idle agent within a qualified skill group.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "auction" (from the ’420 and ’086 Patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of several asserted patents. The viability of the infringement allegations may depend on whether Defendant's process of assigning a call to an agent from a pool of available agents can be legally and factually characterized as an "auction."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses matching a "first entity" with a "second entity" from a plurality of options, which could be argued to broadly describe any competitive selection process, not just a formal bid-based auction (’420 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly frames the process in economic terms, referencing "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and a "cost-benefit outcome of a routing" (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 38:25-27), which may support a narrower construction requiring an explicit or implicit bidding or value-maximization process.

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

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the optimization goal of the claimed invention. The dispute may focus on whether this requires a system-wide calculation that considers all active calls and agents simultaneously to achieve a global optimum, or if it can be met by a series of individual routing decisions that are locally optimal.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "utility" could be argued to broadly encompass any desirable outcome, such as minimizing customer wait times across the system, which many routing systems attempt to do (’748 Patent, col. 36:5-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes determining an "optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets," which suggests a holistic, combinatorial analysis rather than a simple, sequential one. The specification contrasts its solution with simpler prior art methods, suggesting the claimed "maximization" is a more complex, computationally intensive process (’748 Patent, col. 2:50-4:49).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the ’748 and ’086 patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to use Defendant's products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶45). The complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of the patents at least since the service of the complaint and the corresponding claim charts (Compl. ¶25, ¶46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 patents based on the service of the complaint and attached claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). It further alleges that Defendant has continued to infringe despite this knowledge, which could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).

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

• Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the patents' specialized terms, such as "auction" and "maximizing an aggregate utility," which are rooted in economic optimization theory, be construed to encompass the potentially more conventional rule-based or skill-based logic of a large-scale commercial call center?
• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant's accused systems actually perform the specific, complex, multi-factorial optimizations required by the claims. The complaint’s reliance on unprovided external exhibits suggests that the central factual dispute will be over the precise technical operation of the accused systems.
• Plausibility of Allegations: A threshold procedural question may arise regarding whether the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations of infringement in its body and instead incorporates external documents by reference, meets the plausibility pleading standards required to proceed to discovery.