Patent Armory Inc v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (United States)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00192, W.D. Tex., 04/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer communication and service systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced systems for routing communications, such as customer calls in a call center, by using multi-factor optimization and economic principles to match callers with appropriately skilled agents.
• 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 - Method and system for matching entities in an auction (issued March 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems in call centers, which typically use simple first-come-first-served logic. This approach fails to account for agents with varying skills, leading to problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents and creating static, suboptimal agent groupings (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-5:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for matching a "first entity" (e.g., an incoming call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) through an "automated optimization." The system defines parameters for the caller (e.g., needs, language) and characteristics for the agents (e.g., skills, cost). It then performs an optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract). This process moves beyond simple queuing to a dynamic, economic-based matching algorithm, as illustrated in the system architecture showing call classification vectors and agent characteristics being processed to find an optimal routing (’420 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 8:13-33).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static, rule-based call routing to a dynamic, economically-driven model capable of handling complex scenarios with multi-skilled agents in real-time. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but refers to claim charts in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

• A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities;
• Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity;
• Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for each of the second entities, representing their respective characteristic parameters;
• Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match and an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the second entity for an alternate match.

The complaint reserves the right to assert additional 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 addresses the challenge of optimizing call center operations beyond immediate efficiency, aiming for a more global optimization that accounts for long-term factors like agent training and business goals (’748 Patent, col. 27:10-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that represents both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their predicted characteristics and an associated "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" between sources and targets (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can implement different routing principles, such as a long-term optimization that explicitly values training as a utility of handling a call, thereby routing calls to trainee agents under certain conditions (’748 Patent, col. 35:30-36:3).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for routing communications based on predicted economic outcomes rather than static rules, enabling a more strategic and goal-oriented approach to managing call center resources. (Compl. ¶21, ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims but refers to claim charts in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

• A communications routing system with a processor and memory;
• Representing predicted characteristics of communication sources, each having a respective economic utility;
• Representing predicted characteristics of communication targets, each having a respective economic utility;
• Determining an optimal routing by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the predicted characteristics of the sources and destinations.

The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing (issued April 4, 2006)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficient call routing by describing a system that uses a database of agent skill scores and a separate database of skill weights corresponding to communication classifications. A processor computes an optimum agent selection based on this data and directly controls the routing of the communication, integrating the intelligence within the telephony control system itself (’979 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶11).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant’s products identified in the unattached Exhibit 8 (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - Telephony control system with intelligent call routing (issued September 11, 2007)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for optimizing call routing in a call center by determining an optimum agent based on a cost-benefit optimization. The optimization considers both the correspondence between the characteristics of the call and the agent's skills, as well as the availability of the agent for handling the call, allowing for a more dynamic matching process (’253 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant’s products identified in the unattached Exhibit 9 (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - Method and system for matching entities in an auction (issued September 27, 2016)

• Technology Synopsis: An earlier patent in the same family as the ’420 Patent, this invention describes a method for matching a first entity with a second entity by performing an automated optimization. The optimization considers an economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of making the second entity unavailable for other matches, framing the routing decision as an auction-based economic problem (’086 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶13).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant’s products identified in the unattached Exhibit 10 (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. It refers to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are detailed in exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶21).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only general allegations that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its specific theories by reference to claim chart exhibits that were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The narrative allegations state that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without the claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the terminology of the patents, such as "auction", "economic surplus", and "opportunity cost", can be construed to read on the functionality of a financial institution's customer communication systems. The dispute may focus on whether the Defendant’s systems perform a specific, economically-defined optimization as claimed, or a more conventional form of skill-based or statistical routing that falls outside the patent scope.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be evidentiary. The complaint provides no public facts demonstrating how the accused systems operate. The case will likely require discovery to determine whether the accused systems actually perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" required by the claims or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost" (from the ’420 and ’086 Patents)
  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears to be the core of the inventive concept, distinguishing it from prior art routing systems. The defendant may argue that its systems do not perform this specific type of economic calculation, making the construction of these terms potentially case-dispositive. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether a conventional call-routing system that considers agent skill and availability falls within the scope of a claim requiring a specific economic optimization.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in broad terms, such as optimizing a "cost-utility function" that can include a wide variety of factors like training utility, agent cost, and anticipated business outcomes, not just formal financial metrics (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-50). This language may support a construction that covers any system balancing multiple weighted factors.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents' titles and frequent use of the word "auction" could support a narrower construction tied to competitive bidding mechanisms (’420 Patent, Title; col. 22:45-51). The explicit use of specific economic terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" in the abstract and claims may be argued to limit the scope to systems that perform calculations according to recognized economic definitions of those terms (’420 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The basis for these allegations is that Defendant provides "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, ¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, but bases this knowledge exclusively on the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This suggests a basis for potential post-suit, but not pre-suit, enhanced damages.

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms rooted in economic theory, such as "auction", "economic surplus", and "opportunity cost", be construed to cover the internal logic of a financial institution’s customer service routing systems, which may not involve explicit bidding or formal economic modeling?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence, currently absent from the public record, will demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific "multifactorial optimization" recited in the claims, as opposed to employing more conventional, non-infringing routing methods based on static rules or statistical analysis?
• A threshold challenge will be the identification of the accused instrumentality: given the complaint's generality, discovery will be required to determine which of the Defendant’s numerous and varied technology platforms—from internal call centers to online banking portals—are actually alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit.