DCT

1:24-cv-01598

Patent Armory Inc v. Maximus Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc (Canada)
- Defendant: Maximus Inc (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01598, E.D. Va., 09/11/2024
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities in telecommunication environments.
Technical Context: The technology concerns optimizing the connection of incoming communications, such as phone calls in a call center, to the most appropriate available resource, such as a customer service agent, using multifactorial analysis rather than simple queuing rules.
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

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2005-03-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253 Priority Date
2006-04-03	U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 Priority Date
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
2024-09-11	Complaint Filing Date

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 inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as routing calls based on simple first-in-first-out queues or to the longest-idle agent, which can lead to mismatches between a caller's needs and an agent's skills (the "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agent problems) and reduces overall throughput (U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, col. 4:35-62).
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 optimization problem. It defines data profiles for both entities and uses an "automated optimization" to find the best match based on the "economic surplus" of that match and the "opportunity cost" of making that agent unavailable for other potential matches, moving beyond simple, static routing rules (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:4-22:15).
Technical Importance: This approach allows for more dynamic and globally optimized resource allocation in high-volume communication environments by considering system-wide factors in real-time.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least the "exemplary method claims" of the patent without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method.
The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first entity.
- Defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for each of a plurality of second entities.
- Performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a match between the first entity and one of the second entities.
- The optimization also considers an opportunity cost of the unavailability of the selected 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"

Issued: November 26, 2019.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’420 Patent, focusing on the inefficiencies of conventional call center routing methods that fail to account for variations in agent skills or the specific needs of callers (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, col. 4:35-62).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing method that determines an "optimal routing" by "maximizing an aggregate utility." It does this by representing the predicted characteristics and "economic utility" of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents), allowing for a more sophisticated, utility-based matching process (’748 Patent, Abstract). The system can optimize for long-term goals, such as agent training, rather than just short-term call-handling efficiency (’748 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:25-40).
Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for call centers to balance competing objectives, such as immediate efficiency and long-term workforce development, within their automated routing logic.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Representing in a memory a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
- Representing in a memory a plurality of predicted characteristics of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
- Determining, by a processor, 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.

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

Issued: April 4, 2006.
Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in call centers by proposing a control system that intelligently routes calls. The system receives a communication, determines its classification, and computes an optimum agent selection by comparing the classification to a database of agent skills and skill weights, thereby directly controlling the routing decision (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶30).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products that practice intelligent call routing (Compl. ¶32).

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

Issued: September 11, 2007.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for processing communications where a system receives classifications for a plurality of concurrent calls and performs a combinatorial optimization. This optimization determines the best set of mutually exclusive pairings between the group of calls and a group of available agents based on their respective characteristics (U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶36).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's products that perform intelligent, optimized call routing (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction"

Issued: September 27, 2016.
Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’420 Patent, this invention frames the matching of entities as an auction. It describes a method that defines targeting parameters for a first entity and characteristic parameters for a plurality of second entities. It then performs an automated optimization based on the economic surplus of a potential match and the opportunity cost of making that second entity unavailable for other matches (’086 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶42).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's products that use auction-based or economically optimized matching systems (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by name, referring to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products provide intelligent communication routing functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). This functionality is alleged to involve processes for matching incoming communications with available resources by analyzing characteristics of both, a method central to modern call center and customer relationship management (CRM) platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 45). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific features or market context.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that were not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). Therefore, a detailed claim chart analysis cannot be performed based on the provided documents. The infringement allegations are premised on the theory that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the patented methods for intelligent and optimized communication routing. For the ’420 and ’086 Patents, this involves an auction-like optimization considering economic surplus and opportunity cost. For the ’748, ’979, and ’253 Patents, this involves an optimization based on comparing classifications of communications with profiles of available agents to maximize utility or find an optimal pairing.

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the algorithms used in the accused products perform an "automated optimization" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" as those terms are used in the ’420 and ’086 Patents. It raises the question of whether a system that merely ranks potential matches based on a score infringes claims requiring a more complex, system-aware economic calculation.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question will be how the accused products actually operate. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's routing algorithm performs the specific function of "maximizing an aggregate utility" across multiple communications as required by the ’748 Patent, rather than simply finding the best available agent for each communication on a one-by-one basis?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus . . . and an opportunity cost" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This phrase is the core functional step of the primary method claim of the ’420 Patent. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the specific type of calculation required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from simpler routing systems that merely match keywords or select the longest-idle agent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various "cost function[s]" that can be "normalized into a common metric," which may support an argument that any multifactorial calculation that weighs pros and cons could be considered an optimization of economic surplus ('420 Patent, col. 24:19-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit inclusion of "opportunity cost" may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, forward-looking calculation that accounts for the value of making an agent unavailable for future potential communications, a feature not present in simple scoring algorithms ('420 Patent, col. 24:55-62).

"maximizing an aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: This term defines the goal of the claimed routing method. The dispute may turn on whether "aggregate" requires a system-wide optimization across multiple pending communications simultaneously, or if it can be met by individually optimizing each communication as it arises.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract broadly describes determining an "optimal routing... by maximizing an aggregate utility," which could be interpreted as achieving the best overall result, whether calculated individually or collectively (’748 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses "competing requests for allocation" and describes a process to "compare all of the cost functions for the matters in the queue with respect to each permissible pairing," suggesting a combinatorial analysis to find the optimal pairing of multiple agents with multiple matters, which supports a narrower, more computationally intensive meaning (’748 Patent, col. 24:59-66).

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" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). The continued alleged infringement after this date is asserted as the basis for post-suit willful infringement.

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

A core issue will be one of algorithmic scope: can the claim terms "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" and "maximizing an aggregate utility" be construed to read on the specific routing and matching algorithms used in the accused products? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant’s system performs the claimed sophisticated, system-aware calculations rather than a more conventional, non-infringing scoring and ranking process.
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: since the complaint relies on unprovided exhibits to detail infringement, discovery will be central to determining how the accused products actually function. The case will likely focus on whether the evidence uncovered in discovery shows a technical correspondence between the accused system's real-world operations and the specific, multi-part logical steps required by the asserted independent claims.