Patent Armory Inc v. United Healthcare Services Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: United HealthCare Services, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00190, W.D. Tex., 04/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in San Antonio and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities, such as callers with call center agents.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center management systems that use economic principles and multi-factor optimization to route communications, aiming to improve efficiency beyond traditional skill-based routing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference 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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued March 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶9).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, which struggle to balance high-quality customer service with the efficient use of resources. Specifically, it identifies the limitations of simple "first-in, first-out" call distribution and the complexities of scheduling and routing in "skills-based" environments, where agents have varying capabilities. (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-15; col. 5:60-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats the matching of a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) as an auction. This involves defining parameters for both entities and performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also an "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of making one agent unavailable for other potential matches. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:43-50). The system thereby moves beyond simple skill matching to a dynamic, economic cost-benefit analysis for routing communications. (’420 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static or simple heuristic-based call routing to a more sophisticated, dynamic optimization framework that can account for complex economic trade-offs in real time. (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, Abstract).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims of the ’420 Patent," including "exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
    • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of a plurality of second entities, representing their characteristic parameters.
    • 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method," issued November 26, 2019. (Compl. ¶10).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this patent addresses the technical challenge of efficiently routing communications in a complex environment like a call center, where both callers (sources) and agents (targets) have diverse characteristics. (’748 Patent, col. 1:19-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a routing system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility." This is achieved by representing the predicted characteristics of both communication sources and targets and calculating the utility of potential pairings. (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to perform this optimization within the low-level communication server itself, integrating intelligent decision-making with the core routing architecture. (’748 Patent, col. 18:54-61).
  • Technical Importance: This patent family focuses on embedding sophisticated, utility-maximizing logic directly into the communications routing layer, aiming to reduce latency and system complexity compared to architectures that externalize such intelligence to high-level management software. (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 25:46-53).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims of the ’748 Patent." (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A communications control system comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory.
    • The system is configured to receive a call classification vector and a table of agent characteristic vectors.
    • The system determines an optimum agent selection based on a correspondence of the call classification vector and the agent characteristic vectors.
    • The system controls call routing based on that determination.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• 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 describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. The system receives a communication classification and uses a database of skill weights and agent skill scores to compute an optimal agent selection, directly controlling the routing of the communication. (Compl. ¶11; ’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims of the ’979 Patent." (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Defendant products identified in the charts" practice the technology of the ’979 Patent. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253

• 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, related to the ’979 Patent, discloses a system and method where multiple communications are received, characteristics of potential targets are stored, and an optimal target for each communication is determined in a combinatorial optimization. The optimization is based on the communication classifications and target characteristics. (Compl. ¶12; ’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims of the ’253 Patent." (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Defendant products identified in the charts" infringe the ’253 Patent. (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

• 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, related to the ’420 Patent, details a method for matching entities by defining multivalued scalar data for each and performing an automated optimization. The optimization considers the economic surplus of a match as well as the opportunity cost of making an entity unavailable for other potential matches. (Compl. ¶13; ’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "one or more claims of the ’086 Patent." (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Defendant products identified in the charts" practice the technology of the ’086 Patent. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim chart exhibits incorporated by reference. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products. It states generically that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit but does not describe any specific product features, functions, or operations in the body of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations via external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10), which were not provided with the complaint document. (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The asserted patents use terms from economics and auction theory, such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility." A central question will be whether the functionalities of the accused products, which may be described in different technical terms, fall within the scope of these claim limitations as defined by the patent specifications.
  • Technical Questions: The patents claim systems that perform "automated optimization." A key evidentiary question for the court may be what level of proof is required to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-factorial optimization and utility maximization functions required by the claims, as opposed to simpler, heuristic-based routing or matching.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’420 and ’086 Patents:

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: This phrase from independent claim 1 of the ’420 Patent is the core of the inventive concept. The definition will be critical to determining infringement, as it requires not just matching but a specific type of economic calculation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its components ("economic surplus," "opportunity cost") are terms of art in economics that must be grounded in the patent's technical disclosure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in general terms as a "cost-utility function" and a "cost-benefit outcome," suggesting the terms could be construed broadly to cover various forms of multi-factor analysis that weigh positive and negative outcomes. (’420 Patent, col. 24:37-50; Fig. 4, element 608).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides formulas that include specific factors like agent cost, anticipated value of a transaction, and opportunity cost, which could support a narrower construction requiring a more explicit calculation of these specific economic variables. (’420 Patent, col. 24:51-64).

For the ’748 Patent:

• The Term: "determining an optimal routing ... by maximizing an aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: This language from the abstract and claims of the ’748 Patent is central to its inventive concept of intelligent routing. The case may turn on how "aggregate utility" is defined and whether the accused systems can be shown to perform such a maximization function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the system is not limited to voice calls and can apply to various communications, suggesting "utility" could be a broad concept encompassing efficiency or effectiveness in different contexts. (’748 Patent, col. 25:61-64).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links "utility" to specific business goals, such as sales volume, profit, and customer satisfaction, which are normalized into "economic units" for optimization. This may support a narrower construction requiring the optimization to be based on quantifiable economic or business metrics. (’748 Patent, col. 24:30-40).

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." (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges actual knowledge for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts. (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This forms a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement if Defendant's accused activities continue. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can abstract economic terms like "economic surplus" and "aggregate utility," as defined in the context of call center routing, be construed to cover the specific algorithms and operational logic used in the accused products? The resolution of this question will likely depend heavily on claim construction.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be required to demonstrate that the complex, internal software operations of the accused systems perform the specific "automated optimization" and "maximization" functions recited in the claims, particularly when the complaint itself provides no details on the accused products' functionality?
• A third question concerns inducement: assuming direct infringement by end-users, does the product literature cited (but not provided) in the complaint contain specific instructions that would lead a fact-finder to conclude that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally encouraged infringement of the patented methods?