DCT

7:24-cv-00335

Patent Armory Inc v. HCA Healthcare Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00335, W.D. Tex., 12/19/2024
  • 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 allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s healthcare communication systems infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the management of communications in environments like call centers, aiming to improve efficiency by matching incoming requests with the most appropriate available resources.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation or inter partes reviews. The front page of the lead patent, U.S. 10,237,420, indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier-expiring patent in the same family and could be relevant in any damages calculation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Priority Date for ’420, ’748, ’979, ’253, and ’086 Patents
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issued
2007-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Issued
2016-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issued
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Issued
2019-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Issued
2024-12-19 Complaint Filed

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 rigid, first-in-first-out queuing rules (’420 Patent, col. 2:44-52). These systems struggle to optimally match callers with agents who possess varying skill sets, leading to problems like routing calls to under-skilled or over-skilled agents, which reduces transactional throughput (’420 Patent, col. 4:29-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as a real-time optimization or auction problem (’420 Patent, col. 21:50-54). It defines callers and agents using "multivalued scalar data" representing their respective characteristics and needs (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system then performs an "automated optimization" to find the best match, considering factors like "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to a particular call instead of another potential call (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more dynamic and intelligent resource allocation in a communications network, moving beyond static rules to a system that can adaptively manage resources based on a complex set of weighted variables.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Estimating a content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic of a request.
    • Determining a set of available partners with respective partner characteristics.
    • Evaluating pairings of the request with partners using an automated processor according to an evaluator for valuing pairings.
    • Generating a control signal based on the evaluation.
  • 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 same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the limitations of conventional, rule-based communication routing systems in efficiently managing resources like call center agents with diverse skills (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that uses predicted characteristics of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) to determine an optimal routing (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system seeks to maximize an "aggregate utility" based on these predicted characteristics, moving beyond simple routing to a holistic optimization of the entire communications queue (’748 Patent, col. 4:5-14).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for managing communication resources based on their overall utility to the system, rather than on a simple, sequential transaction-by-transaction basis.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • At least one port to receive a request and identify a characteristic.
    • A memory storing availability information for partners and their respective characteristics.
    • An automated processor configured to generate a control signal based on an evaluation of pairings of the request with available partners, dependent on a probabilistic function of the request and partner characteristics.
  • 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, from the same family as the lead patents, describes a communications management system with an input for receiving a "communications classification," a database of skill weights, a database of agent skill scores, and a processor for computing an optimum agent selection based on this information (’979 Patent, Abstract). The invention focuses on integrating intelligent routing decisions within the telephony control system itself.
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's systems for managing and routing communications are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation of the application leading to the ’979 Patent and shares a nearly identical specification and abstract. It claims a communications system where characteristics of communications and potential targets are stored, and an optimal target is determined for each communication in a "combinatorial optimization" based on those characteristics (’253 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's systems for managing and routing communications are accused of infringement (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, also from the same family, claims a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by defining both with "multivalued scalar data" and performing an automated optimization (’086 Patent, Abstract). The optimization explicitly considers the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches.
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's systems for managing and routing communications are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any of Defendant's products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim chart exhibits not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. Based on the defendant's identity as a healthcare provider, the accused instrumentalities are presumably the systems HCA Healthcare uses to manage and route patient and internal communications. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides no narrative infringement theory, instead stating that infringement is demonstrated in claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not attached to the complaint as filed (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). A detailed infringement analysis is therefore not possible from the provided documents.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The asserted patents are framed in the language of auctions, call centers, and economic optimization. A central dispute may be whether these terms can be construed to cover the operations of a healthcare provider. For example, a key question will be whether routing a patient to a caregiver based on medical need and availability constitutes an "auction" or an optimization of "economic surplus" as those terms are used in the patents (’420 Patent, Abstract).
    • Technical Questions: The patent claims require performing a "multifactorial optimization" or evaluating a "probabilistic function" to select an optimal target (’420 Patent, cl. 1; ’748 Patent, cl. 1). A likely point of contention will be whether the Plaintiff can provide evidence that the Defendant's systems perform these specific, computationally complex functions, as opposed to employing more conventional, rule-based routing logic (e.g., routing a call to the next available person in a queue).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "auction"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the title and specification of the ’420 and ’086 Patents and is central to the patented concept. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether Defendant's communication routing processes can be characterized as conducting an "auction."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes routing communications "based on the results of an auction which is sensitive to both economic factors and non-economic factors," suggesting the term may not be limited to purely price-based competition (’420 Patent, col. 11:9-12). Practitioners may argue this supports a broad definition covering any competition for a limited resource.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also refers to specific auction types like "Dutch-type auctions" and "English-type (progressive) auctions," which are well-understood commercial processes involving price discovery (’420 Patent, col. 13:25-30). This may support a narrower construction limited to systems with explicit bidding or price-setting mechanisms.

  • The Term: "economic surplus"

    • Context and Importance: This term from the ’420 Patent's abstract and specification defines the objective of the claimed optimization. Infringement may turn on whether routing a patient generates a cognizable "economic surplus" that Defendant's system optimizes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that business goals like "customer satisfaction" can be "converted and normalized into economic terms prior to use in an optimization," which suggests "economic surplus" could encompass non-monetary benefits (’420 Patent, col. 24:37-40).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides concrete examples of economic parameters, such as agent salaries, training costs, and sales volume, suggesting the term may be limited to quantifiable financial metrics (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-36).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. It alleges that Defendant distributes "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). The complaint notes that these materials are referenced in the unattached Exhibits 7 and 10 (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it pleads "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, asserting that service of the complaint and its associated (but unattached) claim charts provides such knowledge (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation establishes a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement and enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the commercial and financial terminology of the patents, such as "auction" and "economic surplus," be construed to read on the operational processes of a healthcare provider routing patient communications to available caregivers?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: assuming the definitional scope can be met, what evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce to demonstrate that Defendant's systems perform the specific, computationally intensive "multifactorial optimization" required by the asserted claims, rather than conventional, rule-based logic common in communication systems?
  • A third question will be one of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's reliance on unattached exhibits and lack of specific factual allegations mapping accused products to claim elements, the case may face an early challenge regarding whether the infringement claims meet the plausibility standards required by federal pleading rules.