Patent Armory Inc v. Genworth Financial Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Genworth Financial, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02110, E.D. Va., 11/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Virginia and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for managing call centers and other communications hubs, which are critical for optimizing customer service interactions and resource allocation in telecommunications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,237,420 and 9,456,086 are continuations or divisionals of patent applications that claim priority back to a 2003 provisional application, creating a long prosecution history that may be relevant for claim construction. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges.

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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiencies of conventional call center management, where simple routing mechanisms like "first-come-first-served" or "longest-idle-agent" can result in mismatches between caller needs and agent skills, leading to problems such as under-skilled or over-skilled agent allocation and poor adaptability to changing call patterns (ʼ420 Patent, col. 3:36–5:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that treats call routing as an economic auction. It matches callers ("first entity") with agents ("second entity") by defining parameters for both and then performing an "automated optimization" that considers not only the quality of the match but also the "economic surplus" and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential calls (ʼ420 Patent, Abstract). This process is depicted as a cost-utility optimization framework that can balance short-term and long-term call center goals, moving beyond simple skill-based routing (ʼ420 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 24:40-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach recasts telecommunications routing from a simple queuing problem into a dynamic, multi-factorial economic optimization, aiming to provide more efficient resource allocation in complex, high-volume communication environments (ʼ420 Patent, col. 18:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing "one or more claims" and "exemplary method claims" which are detailed in an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶15, 17).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims.

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 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the invention explained, as the patent document is not attached. Based on its title, the technology appears to relate to the intelligent routing of communications.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '748 Patent Claims" detailed in an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶21, 26).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to systems and methods for intelligent call routing within a telephony control system. It appears to be an earlier patent in the same family as the '420 Patent, addressing similar technical challenges in call center management.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "exemplary method claims" of the '979 Patent (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The accused features are identified in charts within Exhibit 8, which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶32).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing," issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: Sharing a title with the '979 Patent, this patent also appears to cover intelligent call routing technologies within a telephony control system and belongs to the same patent family.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "exemplary method claims" of the '253 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The accused features are identified in charts within Exhibit 9, which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶38).

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, "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: Sharing a title with the '420 Patent, this patent also relates to systems that match entities using an auction-based framework. It is an earlier patent in the same family as the '420 Patent.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The accused features are identified in charts within Exhibit 10, which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name, referring to them generically as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges infringement through Defendant’s acts of "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products, as well as internal use and testing (Compl. ¶15-16). For certain patents, it also alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on infringing uses (Compl. ¶24, 45). The specific technical operations are detailed in claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the '420 and '748 Patents but does not include the claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 6 and 7) that detail the infringement theory (Compl. ¶17, 26). The narrative allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary...Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17, 26-27). Without the claim charts or specific asserted claims, a tabular analysis is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question for the '420 Patent will be whether the accused systems perform the claimed "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus...and an opportunity cost" ('420 Patent, Abstract). The analysis may focus on whether the accused functionality rises to the level of an economic "auction" or is more akin to conventional skill-based routing that does not explicitly model economic factors as claimed.
  • Scope Questions: For the '420 Patent, a key scope question may be whether the term "auction," as used and defined in the patent, can be construed to read on the algorithmic routing processes of a modern call center, which may not involve explicit bidding or monetary transfers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not assert specific claims, this analysis is based on terms from the '420 Patent's abstract and specification that appear central to defining the invention's scope. Analysis for the '748 Patent is not possible as the patent document was not provided.

• The Term: "auction"

• Context and Importance: The patent's title, abstract, and detailed description consistently frame the invention as a system for matching entities in an "auction." The definition of this term will be critical to the dispute, as it may determine whether the accused call-routing system performs a process that falls within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes optimizing a "cost-utility function" for call center operations ('420 Patent, Fig. 1), which could support an argument that any multi-factor optimization to assign a resource qualifies as an "auction" in the context of the patent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a system where "economic factors compensate for a suboptimality of a matching of profiles to perturb a non-economic optimal matching from the auction" ('420 Patent, Fig. 7, element 906). This language could support a narrower construction requiring an explicit economic component, such as a cost or bid, to qualify as an "auction."

• The Term: "economic surplus"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the abstract and is a key parameter for the claimed "automated optimization." Whether the accused system calculates a metric equivalent to an "economic surplus" will likely be a central point of the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts refer to optimizing a "cost-utility function" ('420 Patent, Fig. 1, element 312) and a "cost-benefit outcome" ('420 Patent, Fig. 4, element 608). This may support a construction where any calculated utility or benefit metric, even if not explicitly monetary, constitutes an "economic surplus."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "economic surplus" implies a calculation involving quantifiable costs and benefits, often in monetary terms. This interpretation could limit the term to systems that perform explicit financial modeling rather than more general skill-matching.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,491,748 and 9,456,086. 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" (Compl. ¶24, 45). The complaint also pleads knowledge and intent to induce infringement "at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts" (Compl. ¶25, 46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, for the '748 and '086 patents, it alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶23, 44). This allegation of post-suit knowledge could form the basis for a later claim of willfulness. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Prayer for Relief ¶N.i).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent term "auction," which implies an economic transaction, be construed broadly enough to cover the algorithmic processes used in the Defendant's intelligent call-routing systems?
• A key evidentiary question will be what technical proof Plaintiff provides to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific, multi-factor "automated optimization" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," given that the complaint's specific allegations are contained in unprovided exhibits.
• The viability of the indirect infringement claims will likely depend on whether the "product literature and website materials" referenced by the complaint contain specific instructions that direct users to configure or operate the accused systems in a manner that satisfies all limitations of an asserted claim.