Patent Armory Inc v. Auctane Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Auctane, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00301, W.D. Tex., 11/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents concern technologies for optimizing resource allocation in telecommunications systems, particularly by using economic principles and skill-based analysis to match incoming communications or tasks with available agents or resources.
• 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

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, titled "Method and system for matching entities in an auction", issued on March 19, 2019 (the "’420 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call center management, which often relies on simple queuing models like first-come-first-served or routing to the longest-idle agent. These methods fail to account for agent skills and the specific needs of a caller, leading to problems such as routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-4:34).
• 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 auction. It defines "multivalued scalar data" for both entities—inferential targeting parameters for the caller and characteristic parameters for the agent—and performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match. This optimization 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. 8). This creates a dynamic, economically-driven matching system rather than a static, rule-based one (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-13).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for a more granular and economically efficient allocation of resources in a communications network by modeling the matching process as a real-time, multi-factorial optimization problem (’420 Patent, col. 22:4-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" and incorporates claim charts by reference to an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • 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 respective 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 but refers generally to "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, titled "Intelligent communication routing system and method", issued on November 26, 2019 (the "’748 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technology disclosed in the ’748 Patent. The patent document was not attached to the complaint.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" and incorporates claim charts by reference to an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). No specific asserted claims are identified.

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, titled "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing", issued on April 4, 2006 (the "’979 Patent") (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: Based on its title, the ’979 Patent appears to relate to systems and methods for intelligently directing telephone calls within a network, likely a call center environment.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’979 Patent but provides no specific product names or accused features (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, titled "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing", issued on September 11, 2007 (the "’253 Patent") (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: Based on its title, the ’253 Patent appears to be related to the technology of the ’979 Patent, concerning systems and methods for intelligently directing telephone calls.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’253 Patent but provides no specific product names or accused features (Compl. ¶36).

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, titled "Method and system for matching entities in an auction", issued on September 27, 2016 (the "’086 Patent") (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: Based on its title, the ’086 Patent appears to be related to the technology of the ’420 Patent, concerning auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts unspecified "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’086 Patent but provides no specific product names or accused features (Compl. ¶42).

---

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not identify any specific product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference to Exhibits 6 through 10 but does not attach these exhibits (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint’s narrative allegations state only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary [...] Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). This does not provide a narrative theory of infringement sufficient for analysis.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The primary point of contention will be the complete absence of factual allegations detailing how any of Defendant's products operate. A threshold question for the court will be whether the complaint provides plausible, non-conclusory grounds to support an inference of infringement for any claim element.
  • Scope Questions: Assuming the case proceeds, a key question regarding the ’420 Patent will be whether Defendant’s accused products or services, which are not described in the complaint, can be characterized as performing an "auction" that involves calculating "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as those terms are used in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is provided for the ’420 Patent. The complaint provides no basis for claim construction analysis of the other patents-in-suit.

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

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the invention, distinguishing it from simple rule-based routing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely turn on whether the accused functionality, whatever it may be, performs a genuine "optimization" and whether the factors it considers can be properly characterized as an "economic surplus."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal of balancing competing factors, such as providing high-quality service while making "efficient use of call center resources," which could support a broad, goal-oriented definition of the term (’420 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific multi-variable formulas for an "optimize cost-utility function," including terms for agent cost, anticipated change in agent value, transaction value, and opportunity cost. A defendant may argue the claim term should be limited to systems that implement such specific economic calculations (’420 Patent, col. 24:35-65).

• The Term: "opportunity cost of the unavailability" (from Claim 1 of the ’420 Patent).

  • Context and Importance: This term adds another layer of economic sophistication to the claimed method. Infringement analysis will question whether the accused system considers not just the direct value of a match, but also the cost of forgoing other potential matches.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept in general terms, such as the preference to "assign more specialized agents to matters that they can handle, rather than assigning multitalented agents" (’420 Patent, col. 24:48-50). This suggests a conceptual, rather than strictly mathematical, understanding.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the term to a specific variable, "Dcn", in a disclosed cost function formula, defined as "the opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call" (’420 Patent, col. 24:57-59). This could support an interpretation requiring a discrete calculation of this specific cost.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations of knowledge and intent are based on Defendant being served with the complaint and corresponding (but unattached) claim charts (Compl. ¶25, ¶46). The complaint further alleges inducement occurs by selling products to customers and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on infringing uses (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful," but it alleges that Defendant gained "actual knowledge" of the ’748 and ’086 Patents upon service of the complaint and "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite that knowledge (Compl. ¶23-24, ¶44-45). This forms a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A central procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that makes only conclusory infringement allegations and withholds all referenced claim-chart exhibits meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss? The case will test the lower bounds of factual pleading in patent cases in this district.
• Should the case proceed to claim construction, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the technical terms of art from economics, such as "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," be construed broadly to cover general-purpose resource allocation systems, or will they be narrowed to the specific multi-factor formulas disclosed in the patent's embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: the complaint offers no facts about how Defendant's products function. The initial discovery phase will focus entirely on establishing the basic operational principles of the accused instrumentalities to determine if there is any factual basis for the infringement allegations.