Patent Armory Inc v. Xerox Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Xerox Corporation (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00463, W.D. Tex., 09/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the allocation of resources, such as call center agents, to incoming tasks, such as customer calls, based on economic and skill-based criteria.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings 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 (’420 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the inefficiency in traditional call centers of matching incoming calls to available agents, noting the challenges of "static grouping" of agents and the problems of connecting a caller with an "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agent (’420 Patent, col. 4:35-50).
• 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., an agent) as an economic optimization problem (’420 Patent, Abstract). It defines parameters for both entities and performs an "automated optimization" that considers not only the economic benefit of a potential match but also the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, col. 21:3-8; Abstract). This allows for a more dynamic and globally optimized routing decision than simple skill-based or first-in-first-out systems.
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move beyond static, rule-based call distribution to a more dynamic, economically-driven model that can adapt to changing call loads and agent availability in real time (’420 Patent, col. 5:10-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, with Claim 1 being the sole independent claim (’420 Patent, col. 22:42-67).
• Claim 1 requires:
  • 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 plurality of second entities, representing characteristic parameters.
  • Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match.
  • The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the at least one second entity for matching with an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 (’748 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem space as the ’420 Patent: the inefficient routing of communications in environments like call centers, where matching a source (caller) with a target (agent) can be complex (’748 Patent, col. 1:21-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that models both communication sources and targets using "predicted characteristics," each associated with an "economic utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system then determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility" that respects the predicted characteristics of both the source and the destination. This provides a framework for making routing decisions based on a holistic, utility-based calculation rather than discrete rules (’748 Patent, col. 4:51-67).
• Technical Importance: This method allows for a more granular and economically rational approach to routing, aiming to optimize the overall performance of the communication system rather than just handling individual connections sequentially (’748 Patent, col. 27:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, with Claims 1 and 11 being independent (’748 Patent, col. 29:21-48, 30:26-52).
• Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
  • A communications routing system comprising a processor and memory.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality 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 the predicted characteristics.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 (’979 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for intelligent call routing. It involves receiving a communication classification, accessing a database of agent skills and skill weights, and using a processor to compute an optimal agent selection based on a multifactorial analysis of the inputs (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including independent claims 1 and 21 (’979 Patent, col. 11:24-41, 13:51-67).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" without specifying which features of those products are alleged to infringe this patent (Compl. ¶ 30).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 (’253 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a communications system and method for routing communications based on a combinatorial optimization. It receives classification information for a communication, stores characteristics of potential targets (e.g., agents), and determines an optimum target by comparing them (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including independent claims 1 and 21 (’253 Patent, col. 11:24-41, 13:48-67).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" without specifying which features are alleged to infringe this patent (Compl. ¶ 36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 (’086 Patent).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities by defining targeting and characteristic parameters for them as multivalued scalar data. It then performs an automated optimization considering the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making one entity unavailable for an alternative match (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including independent claims 1 and 11 (’086 Patent, col. 22:42-67, 24:1-26).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" without specifying which features are alleged to infringe this patent (Compl. ¶ 42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as exhibits to the complaint (Compl. ¶ 15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations for all five patents-in-suit rely entirely on the incorporation by reference of claim charts provided as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). As these exhibits were not filed with the public version of the complaint, a detailed analysis of the Plaintiff's infringement theories is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint asserts that "[a]s set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the [asserted] Patent" (Compl. ¶ 17). This conclusory statement forms the entirety of the substantive infringement allegation for direct infringement.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’420 Patent

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus ... and an opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: This phrase appears in the independent claim and captures the core of the asserted invention. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the accused system performs the specific type of calculation required by the patent, as opposed to a more general form of skill-based or priority-based routing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the definitions of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" dictate the specific inputs and logic required for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in general terms, stating it may be "influenced by economic and non-economic factors, and the optimization may include objective and subjective factors," which could support construing the term to cover a wide range of analytical methods (’420 Patent, col. 22:64-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific formulas for calculating cost and utility, for example, "A_n=Max({[A_cn1∑(r_s1 a_ns1)+A_cn2]+B_cn}+C_cn)+D_cn", where "D_cn" explicitly represents the "opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, col. 24:50-54). A defendant may argue this formula limits the scope of the claim term to optimizations that employ these specific, disclosed variables.

’748 Patent

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: This phrase is the central action in independent claim 1 and defines the goal of the routing determination. The case may turn on whether the accused system performs a specific "maximization" of an "aggregate utility" or merely applies a set of rules that results in an efficient outcome without performing the claimed calculation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the system determines an optimal routing by maximizing an aggregate utility "with respect to the respective predicted characteristics," which could be interpreted broadly to cover any system that considers multiple characteristics to achieve a globally better outcome (’748 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent notes that "the general principle is to route the call such that the sum of the utility functions of the calls be maximized while the cost of handling those calls be minimized" (’748 Patent, col. 36:25-29). This suggests a specific mathematical goal (sum of utility functions) that could be argued to narrow the scope of "maximizing an aggregate utility" to a particular type of additive calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of 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). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least since the service of the complaint and corresponding claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents since being served with the complaint and has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25, 44, 46). These allegations could form the basis for a later claim of post-filing willfulness.

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

• A primary issue will be one of procedural sufficiency and factual development: given that the complaint identifies neither the accused products nor the specific mechanism of infringement outside of unfiled exhibits, a central question will be whether the initial pleading provides sufficient notice. The case will depend heavily on discovery to reveal the actual technology at issue and the plaintiff’s specific infringement contentions.
• A core technical question will be one of algorithmic scope: can the patent claims, which recite specific methods of "automated optimization" based on "economic surplus" and "aggregate utility," be read to cover the routing and resource allocation algorithms used in Defendant's commercial products? The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused systems perform these specific, claimed calculations or achieve similar results through different, unpatented means.