Patent Armory Inc v. Humana Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Humana, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00151, W.D. Tex., 04/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Western District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for managing customer communications infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The technology domain involves optimizing call center operations by using economic and utility-based models to intelligently match incoming communications with available agents.
• Key Procedural History: The five patents-in-suit belong to at least two distinct families with extensive and overlapping prosecution histories, claiming priority to provisional applications filed as early as 2002 and 2003. This indicates a long-term and multifaceted effort by the inventors to patent various aspects of intelligent telecommunications routing.

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 Mar. 19, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of traditional call centers that rely on simple rules like "first-come-first-served" for call routing, which fails to create optimal pairings between callers and agents with specific skills or characteristics (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by applying economic principles. It defines "multivalued scalar data" representing parameters for both entities and performs an "automated optimization" to maximize the "economic surplus" of a match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making an agent unavailable for other potential matches (’420 Patent, Abstract; ’420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The approach moves beyond simple queuing logic to apply sophisticated economic modeling to telecommunications routing, aiming to improve overall call center efficiency and outcomes (’420 Patent, col. 1:16-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core method.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity.
  • Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data for a plurality of second entities, representing their 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 matched second entity for an alternate first entity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - Intelligent communication routing system and method (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’420 Patent, the background of the ’748 Patent describes the limitations of conventional call centers that do not intelligently match callers to agents based on their respective needs and skills (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-50).
• The Patented solution: The invention discloses a system and method for determining an "optimal routing" between communication sources and targets by "maximizing an aggregate utility." This is achieved by representing the predicted characteristics of both sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) and evaluating the linkages between them based on their respective economic utility (’748 Patent, Abstract; ’748 Patent, col. 28:5-20).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for dynamic, real-time decision-making in communication routing that considers a wide range of predictive characteristics to improve the overall value of the connections made (’748 Patent, col. 18:8-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core system.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A communications routing system.
  • Representing predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
  • Representing 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. 7,269,253

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," Issued Sep. 11, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of inefficient call routing in telephony systems. It describes a control system that determines an optimal agent for a call by performing a combinatorial analysis of various factors, including agent skills and the nature of the call, to optimize a cost-benefit outcome (’253 Patent, Abstract; ’253 Patent, col. 40:40-52).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’253 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

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 Apr. 4, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’253 Patent, also describes an intelligent call routing system for telephony. The invention involves a control system that performs a combinatorial optimization to select an optimal agent for handling a call, based on a cost-benefit analysis of the characteristics of the call and the available agents (’979 Patent, Abstract; ’979 Patent, col. 40:40-52).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶41).

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 Sep. 27, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’420 Patent, describes a system for matching entities using an auction model. The invention involves defining data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for a plurality of second entities, and then performing an optimization based on the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of agent unavailability (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products, systems, or services by name (Compl. ¶15). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates by reference claim charts contained in Exhibits 6 through 10, which were not filed as part of the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 41, 50).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patents-in-suit but does not provide claim charts or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 41-42, 50-51). The infringement theory is articulated only through the incorporation by reference of non-public exhibits. Consequently, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The absence of specific factual allegations in the complaint raises the fundamental question of which of Defendant’s products are accused and what technical evidence supports the claim that they perform the complex, model-based optimization methods required by the patents.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the abstract economic concepts central to the patents, such as "economic surplus" (’420 Patent) and "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent), can be interpreted to read on the potentially different logic used by Defendant’s real-world call routing systems.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether Defendant’s systems actually perform a "combinatorial analysis" or "multifactorial optimization" as recited in the claims, or if they rely on simpler, non-infringing rule sets for routing communications.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420:

• The Term: "economic surplus"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the core optimization step of independent claim 1. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether Defendant's system can be shown to calculate or optimize for a value corresponding to this specific economic principle. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a term of art that could narrow the claim's scope to formal economic models.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function" and a "cost-benefit outcome," suggesting "economic surplus" could be interpreted more broadly to encompass general cost-benefit calculations rather than a strict microeconomic definition (’420 Patent, col. 22:1-5; Fig. 4, 608).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title and abstract explicitly frame the invention as an "auction," which may support a narrower construction of "economic surplus" tied to its formal meaning in auction theory (’420 Patent, Title; Abstract).

For U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748:

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility"
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the central function of the claimed routing system in independent claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the objective function of Defendant’s routing system can be characterized as maximizing an "aggregate utility" for all sources and targets, as opposed to optimizing for a different metric (e.g., minimizing wait time for an individual caller).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "utility" in broad terms, including "customer satisfaction" and simple economic parameters like "sales volume," which could support an interpretation covering various business-oriented optimization goals (’748 Patent, col. 24:35-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses optimizing a "cost-utility function" over both short and long terms, suggesting that "utility" might require a specific, quantifiable calculation rather than a general business goal (’748 Patent, Fig. 1, 308, 312).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 40, 48).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations for the ’748, ’979, and ’086 patents are based on alleged "actual knowledge" of infringement arising from the service of the complaint and its attached (but not publicly filed) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 38, 47). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "economic surplus" and "aggregate utility," which are rooted in formal economic and optimization theory, be construed to cover the operational logic of a commercial call-management system, or will claim construction limit these terms to the specific auction and mathematical models described in the patents?
• A fundamental evidentiary question will be one of factual specificity: What specific products, systems, and algorithms does Plaintiff accuse, and what evidence will be produced to demonstrate that these systems perform the complex, multi-step optimization and data modeling functions required by the asserted claims, a level of detail absent from the initial complaint?