DCT

6:24-cv-00182

Patent Armory Inc v. Fired Up Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00182, W.D. Tex., 04/10/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in a communications network.
  • Technical Context: The technology domain is automated telecommunications management, specifically for optimizing resource allocation in environments like call centers, which is significant for improving operational efficiency and customer service.
  • 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

Date Event
2002-03-07 Priority Date for ’979 Patent and ’253 Patent
2003-03-07 Priority Date for ’420 Patent and ’086 Patent
2006-04-04 ’979 Patent Issued
2006-04-03 Priority Date for ’748 Patent
2007-09-11 ’253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 ’086 Patent Issued
2019-03-19 ’420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 ’748 Patent Issued
2024-04-10 Complaint Filing Date

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 inefficiencies of traditional call centers that use simple, first-come-first-served routing logic, which fails to account for agent skills or the specific needs of a caller, leading to suboptimal resource allocation and service quality ( Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
  • 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) through a process akin to an auction. This is achieved by defining parameters for both entities and performing an "automated optimization" that considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This system moves beyond simple skill-based routing to a more dynamic, economic-based optimization (’420 Patent, col. 3:4-13).
  • Technical Importance: The technical approach aims to improve call center efficiency by treating agent time as a valuable resource to be allocated through a market-based mechanism, rather than static rules (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, incorporating by reference an exhibit that is not provided (Compl. ¶15). U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 contains three independent claims. Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a plurality of second entities, representing their characteristic parameters.
    • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match between the first entity and 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 but makes a general allegation of infringing "one or more 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: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the background addresses the challenge of efficiently handling electronic customer contact in call centers, where the goals of high-quality service and efficient resource use are often in competition (’748 Patent, col. 2:22-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that represents the predicted characteristics and "economic utility" of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents). The system then determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility" between the sources and targets (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can incorporate factors like training needs into its cost-utility function, allowing for long-term operational optimization rather than just immediate efficiency (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:30-43).
  • Technical Importance: This technology formalizes call routing as a multi-factorial optimization problem based on economic utility, providing a more sophisticated framework than traditional routing systems (’748 Patent, col. 4:18-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, incorporating by reference an exhibit that is not provided (Compl. ¶21). U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 contains two independent claims. Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • 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 the sources and targets by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to their predicted characteristics.
  • The complaint makes a general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶21).

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: This patent relates to intelligent call routing in a telephony control system. It describes a system comprising an input for receiving a communication classification, a database of agent skill scores, and a processor for computing an optimum agent selection based on that information to control routing (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

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 patent also relates to intelligent call routing in a telephony control system. It describes a system and method where communications are received, characteristics of potential targets are stored, and an optimum target is determined for each communication in a combinatorial optimization based on both sets of characteristics (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶38).

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 describes a method for matching entities by defining parameters for each and performing an automated optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making an entity unavailable for other matches. This technology is designed to intelligently route communications based on both economic and non-economic factors (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name in its main body. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in external exhibits incorporated by reference into the infringement counts (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific functionality or market context, as this information is contained within the referenced external exhibits.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement through referenced claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which were not provided with the complaint document. The infringement theory is therefore summarized below in prose.

  • ’420 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe the ’420 Patent by practicing the claimed method of matching entities based on an auction model (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). It alleges that the products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17).
  • ’748 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly and indirectly infringe the ’748 Patent by practicing the claimed intelligent communication routing system and method (Compl. ¶21, ¶25, ¶26).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying product features to claim limitations, a primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The case will depend on whether discovery reveals that the accused products actually perform the complex optimization and economic calculations required by the claims.
    • Scope Questions: A central question for claim construction and infringement analysis will be the scope of functional terms like "automated optimization" and "economic surplus." The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' routing logic, once understood, performs a function that meets the specific definitions and embodiments described in the patent specifications, or if it is merely a more general form of skill-based routing that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (’420 Patent, Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the central inventive step of the asserted method. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Defendant's system can be shown to perform a process that meets both the "automated optimization" and "economic surplus" limitations. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a potentially subjective business concept ("economic surplus") to a required technical action ("optimization"), creating a likely point of dispute over the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal of making "efficient use of call center resources," which could support interpreting "economic surplus" broadly to include general efficiency gains beyond strict monetary calculations (Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical formulas for cost-utility functions, including factors for agent cost, anticipated transaction value, and opportunity cost, which could support a narrower interpretation requiring a specific type of multi-variable economic calculation (Compl. ¶8; ’420 Patent, col. 24:1-50).

  • The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1).

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the goal of the claimed routing determination. A dispute is likely to arise over what constitutes "maximizing" and whether the accused system performs such a function. Practitioners may focus on this term because "maximizing" suggests a specific algorithmic outcome that may be difficult to prove, as opposed to merely "improving" utility.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes "utility" as encompassing a wide range of factors, including both simple economic parameters and more abstract business goals like customer satisfaction, suggesting the "maximization" process is a holistic balancing act rather than a rigid mathematical calculation (Compl. ¶8; ’748 Patent, col. 4:30-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract's reference to maximizing utility "with respect to the respective predicted characteristics" and the specification's discussion of "numeric analysis" could support a narrower reading that requires a formal, quantitative optimization process designed to yield a mathematically maximal outcome based on the available data (Compl. ¶8; ’748 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-24).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "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, ¶45). The complaint also asserts knowledge and intent for inducement "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶25, ¶46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: As the complaint makes only general allegations, the case will depend entirely on what discovery reveals about the accused products. The central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that Defendant's systems perform the specific, multi-factorial economic optimizations claimed in the patents, or if they operate on simpler, non-infringing principles.
  • A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of key functional terms such as "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "maximizing an aggregate utility." The dispute will be whether these terms require a specific, mathematically rigorous process as detailed in the patents' embodiments, or if they can be construed more broadly to cover general-purpose commercial routing logic.
  • A central question for the indirect infringement claims will be one of specific intent: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's product documentation and marketing materials actively instruct or encourage users to operate the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the method claims, thereby establishing the requisite intent for inducement?