Patent Armory Inc v. Unum Group

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Unum Group (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00191, W.D. Tex., 04/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in 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, such as callers with call center agents.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the operation of large-scale communications centers by using economic principles and multifactorial analysis to route customer inquiries to the most appropriate service agent.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings (e.g., IPRs) involving the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents claim priority from applications dating back to 2002 and 2003, suggesting a long prosecution history for the patent families.

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: Traditional call center systems, known as Automatic Call Distributors (ACDs), often route incoming calls inefficiently (Compl. ¶9; ’420 Patent, col. 4:35-37). Even more advanced "skill-based routing" suffers from problems such as assigning over-qualified agents to simple tasks or under-qualified agents to complex ones, and relying on static agent groupings, all of which reduce a call center's overall throughput and efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention recasts the problem of matching a caller to an agent as a dynamic, real-time auction (’420 Patent, Abstract). Instead of using simple queues or static skill lists, the system defines quantitative parameters for both the incoming entity (e.g., a caller) and the available target entities (e.g., agents) (’420 Patent, Abstract). A processor then performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also economic factors like the "economic surplus" of a good match and the "opportunity cost" of making a skilled agent unavailable for a potentially more valuable future call (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a call center to move beyond simple skill-matching to a more holistic, economic optimization of its resources, potentially improving efficiency and customer outcomes by considering a wider array of dynamic variables (’420 Patent, col. 18:5-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more "exemplary method claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶15). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for a first entity (e.g., a caller) representing "inferential targeting parameters."
  • Defining multivalued scalar data for a plurality of second entities (e.g., agents) representing their "characteristic parameters."
  • Performing an "automated optimization" with a processor that considers both the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a second entity unavailable for an alternate first entity.
  • Selectively generating a tangible control signal to control a communications router based on the optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” Issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies inefficiencies in prior art call center routing systems, which often separate the low-level call switching hardware (e.g., a PBX) from the high-level "intelligent" software (e.g., a CRM system) that makes routing decisions (Compl. ¶10; ’748 Patent, col. 18:50-54). This separation can introduce latency and communication burdens, preventing true real-time optimization (’748 Patent, col. 26:27-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention integrates the intelligent routing logic into the low-level communication control system itself (’748 Patent, col. 18:23-34). A processor within the routing system receives call characteristic data and performs a "multifactorial optimization" based on a "non-binary weighted correspondence" between the call's needs and the agents' characteristics to determine an optimal target (’748 Patent, Claim 1). This allows for complex routing decisions to be made quickly and efficiently without constant communication with a separate high-level system (’748 Patent, col. 26:47-59).
• Technical Importance: By embedding the optimization logic at a lower architectural level, the system aims to reduce latency and system complexity, enabling more dynamic and responsive intelligent routing in high-volume communication environments (’748 Patent, col. 26:50-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims without specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communications router for routing concurrent real-time communications.
  • A processor configured to receive call characteristic data for a communication.
  • The processor determines an optimal communications target from available targets.
  • The determination depends on a "multifactorial optimization" of a "non-binary weighted correspondence" between call characteristics and target characteristics.
  • The processor transmits the resolved optimal target to control the routing.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" generally (Compl. ¶21).

Multi-Patent Capsules

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony control system that improves upon traditional call routing (Compl. ¶11). The system uses a processor to compute an "optimum" agent selection based on a communications classification and agent skill scores, and then directly controls the routing of the call, integrating the decision-making and routing functions (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more method claims without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the claimed technology but does not identify them (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” Issued September 11, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’979 Patent, also describes a communications system where an optimal target for a communication is determined through a combinatorial optimization (Compl. ¶12). The system considers characteristics of the communication and potential targets to find the best match based on a cost-benefit analysis, rather than simple queuing (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more method claims without further specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the claimed technology but does not identify them (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” Issued September 27, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining parameters for each and performing an automated optimization (Compl. ¶13). The optimization is framed as an auction that considers the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a target entity unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims without further specification (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" of practicing the claimed technology but does not identify them (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 6-10; however, these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. Based on the subject matter of the patents-in-suit, the accused instrumentality is likely a customer service, sales, or communications platform that intelligently routes incoming communications (such as phone calls) to agents or other destinations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement via claim charts incorporated by reference, which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The following summaries are constructed based on the language of the asserted patents’ independent claims and the general nature of the technology.

’420 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "auction," "economic surplus," and "opportunity cost." The question will be whether Defendant's routing algorithm, which may use a multifactorial scoring system, performs the specific economic optimization claimed by the patent, or if it performs a more conventional form of skill-based matching that falls outside the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence detailing how the accused system's optimization algorithm actually functions. A key question for the court will be whether the accused system calculates an "opportunity cost" for an alternate match, a specific and potentially distinguishing feature of the claim.

’748 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "multifactorial optimization" and "non-binary weighted correspondence." The question will be what level of algorithmic complexity is required to meet these limitations and whether the accused system's method rises to that level.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify where the accused system's routing logic is executed. A key factual question will be whether the optimization is performed at a low level integrated with the communications router, as described in the patent, or by a separate, high-level application, which may present a non-infringement argument.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "auction" (’420 Patent, Claim 20)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’420 and ’086 patents’ inventive concept. Defendant will likely argue its system performs algorithmic matching, not a formal "auction." Plaintiff will need to establish that the patent's use of "auction" should be construed broadly to cover any system where resources (agents) compete for a task (the call) based on value.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process as an "optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," which are concepts applicable to competitive resource allocation in general, not just formal bidding processes (’420 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discusses embodiments where agents "bid for a caller" based on commission rates, which suggests a more traditional interpretation of an auction involving explicit bids (’420 Patent, col. 22:50-54).

• The Term: "multifactorial optimization" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical process of the ’748 patent. The case may depend on whether Defendant's system, which likely considers multiple factors, performs an "optimization" of sufficient complexity to meet this limitation, or merely a simple summation or filtering.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes using a "cost function" that can normalize disparate factors like training cost, productivity, and predicted outcome into a common metric, suggesting any process that combines multiple such factors could be considered "multifactorial" (’748 Patent, col. 24:15-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides complex formulae, including considerations for "anticipated change in value of agent n" and "opportunity cost," suggesting the term requires more than a simple weighted scoring of current agent skills (’748 Patent, col. 24:51-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant distributing "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).
• Willful Infringement: While not using the word "willful," the complaint alleges that the service of the complaint itself constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement and a request for enhanced damages.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "auction," as used in the ’420 and ’086 patents, be construed to cover a system that uses a multifactorial algorithm to assign communications, or is it limited to systems involving more explicit bidding mechanisms? The answer will likely depend heavily on claim construction.
2. A second key issue will be one of operational architecture: does the accused system perform its "multifactorial optimization" at a low architectural level integrated with the communications router, as required by the ’748 Patent, or does it rely on a separate, high-level software system for its intelligent decision-making? This presents a fundamental question of technical operation and potential non-infringement.
3. A significant evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to demonstrate, without the benefit of discovery, that the accused instrumentality—which is not publicly described in the complaint—actually performs the specific, complex optimizations required by the claims, such as calculating "opportunity cost" or using a "non-binary weighted correspondence."