Patent Armory Inc v. General Dynamics Information Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02318, E.D. Va., 12/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Virginia.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching communications entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced call center management systems that use economic and utility-based models to optimize the routing of communications, a field significant for improving operational efficiency in large-scale customer service operations.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit belong to a large, inter-related family with a prosecution history spanning over two decades, involving numerous continuation and divisional applications. This extensive prosecution history may give rise to questions regarding claim scope and potential disclaimers made during examination. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative challenges involving these patents.

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 March 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inherent inefficiencies in traditional call center management, which often relies on simple "first-come-first-served" queuing or basic skill-based routing, leading to suboptimal use of agent resources and inconsistent customer service (ʼ420 Patent, col. 2:26-34, 3:1-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (such as an incoming call) with one of a plurality of "second entities" (such as available agents) through an "automated optimization." This optimization is performed with respect to the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for other potential matches, effectively creating an auction-like system for routing communications (ʼ420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from static routing rules to a dynamic, economic-based model for allocating communication resources in real time, aiming to achieve a more globally optimal outcome for the call center operation (ʼ420 Patent, col. 4:6-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but incorporates by reference a claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶¶15, 17-18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and includes the following essential elements:
  • 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 of the plurality of second entities for matching with an alternate first entity
• The complaint states that one or more claims of the ʼ420 Patent are infringed (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 ʼ420 Patent: the limitations and inefficiencies of conventional call center routing systems that fail to account for a global set of competing factors and goals (ʼ748 Patent, col. 2:26-34, 3:1-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that represents predicted characteristics of both communication sources (e.g., callers) and communication targets (e.g., agents), each having an associated "economic utility." The system determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" with respect to these predicted characteristics, moving beyond simple one-to-one matching to a system-wide optimization (ʼ748 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system provides a framework for implementing a utility-based economic model for real-time communications routing, allowing for more intelligent and context-aware management of resources than traditional automatic call distributors (ʼ748 Patent, col. 18:8-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but incorporates by reference a claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶¶21, 26-27). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and includes the following essential elements:
  • A communications routing system comprising an input, a memory, and a processor
  • representing a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility
  • representing a plurality of 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 alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ʼ748 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 - “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued April 4, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, an early member of the asserted patent family, addresses inefficiencies in call centers by disclosing a system for intelligent call routing (ʼ979 Patent, col. 18:8-21). The invention moves beyond simple queuing by proposing a system that matches callers to agents using a multifactorial analysis of skills and other characteristics, aiming to improve overall call center performance (ʼ979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology but does not identify specific features (Compl. ¶¶30, 32).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ʼ979 Patent and similarly describes a system for optimizing call routing in a telephony environment (ʼ253 Patent, col. 18:8-21). The invention focuses on improving call center efficiency by using intelligent algorithms to match incoming calls with the most appropriate agents based on a variety of criteria (ʼ253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology but does not identify specific features (Compl. ¶¶36, 38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - “Method and system for matching entities in an auction,” issued September 27, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching entities using an auction-based framework where the routing is sensitive to both economic and non-economic factors (ʼ086 Patent, col. 18:8-21). The system performs an optimization that considers factors like the optimality of a profile match alongside economic factors that may compensate for a suboptimal match, thereby achieving a more nuanced routing decision (ʼ086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology but does not identify specific features (Compl. ¶¶42, 47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by name, referring to them generally as “Exemplary Defendant Products” (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality. All technical details of the alleged infringement are incorporated by reference to external exhibits that were not attached to the complaint as filed on the public docket (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for its infringement allegations but does not include them with the filing. Therefore, a tabular summary cannot be created.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Defendant’s “Exemplary Defendant Products” practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of certain “Exemplary” patent claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶15, 17, 21, 26). The complaint provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the document to support these conclusions, instead incorporating by reference Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, which are described as containing claim charts comparing the patent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patents claim systems and methods for matching entities using terms like "auction", "economic surplus", and "maximizing an aggregate utility". A potential point of contention is whether the processes used by the accused products, once identified, can be characterized as performing these specific economic and optimization functions as understood within the context of the patent specifications.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will concern the actual operational mechanism of the accused products. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform a "multifactorial optimization" that considers "opportunity cost" (as recited in the ʼ420 Patent) or maximizes an "aggregate utility" (as recited in the ʼ748 Patent), as opposed to employing more conventional skill-based or rules-based routing logic?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" (from the '420 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of applying an economic model to communications routing. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the logic employed by the accused products falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific type of calculation beyond simple best-match algorithms.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the underlying goals in broad terms, such as achieving "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which may support a construction not strictly limited to monetary calculations (ʼ420 Patent, col. 4:6-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit use of terms like "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" in the abstract and claims, along with detailed discussions of "cost-utility function[s]" in the specification, could support a narrower construction that requires a specific, quantifiable economic analysis (ʼ420 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:30-40).

• The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from the '748 Patent family)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the objective of the claimed routing system. The dispute will likely focus on what level of performance qualifies as "maximizing" and what factors can constitute "utility."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "utility" in expansive terms that include non-monetary business goals like "customer satisfaction" alongside economic parameters like "sales volume, profit, or the like," suggesting a broad definition (ʼ748 Patent, col. 24:30-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "maximizing" could be construed to require a provably optimal result from a combinatorial analysis, rather than merely an improved result. The specification's discussion of numerical analysis and comparing "all of the cost functions for the matters in the queue" may support an interpretation requiring a global optimization process (ʼ748 Patent, col. 24:58-65).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ʼ748 and ʼ086 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: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ʼ748 and ʼ086 Patents, with knowledge dating from the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶23, 44). The prayer for relief seeks damages for "continuing or future infringement" for these two patents, which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶L).

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

• A primary threshold issue may be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which identifies neither the accused products by name nor the specific claims asserted, and which incorporates unattached exhibits for all substantive infringement details, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under prevailing federal pleading standards?
• A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can abstract terms from the patent claims, such as "auction" and "economic surplus," which are rooted in the context of call-center optimization, be construed to cover the specific functionalities of the as-yet-unidentified accused products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can be adduced to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific "automated optimization" and "utility maximization" steps required by the claims, as distinguished from more conventional, non-infringing routing methods?