Patent Armory Inc v. Maximus Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Maximus Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-1598, E.D. Va., 09/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in McLean, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s communication routing systems infringe five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns sophisticated call center management systems that optimize the routing of communications (e.g., phone calls) to agents based on complex, multi-factorial criteria, moving beyond simple first-in-first-out queuing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

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: Traditional call centers handle high volumes of calls using simple rules like first-come-first-served, which can be inefficient when agents have varying skills and callers have different needs. This can lead to mismatches, such as routing a complex technical question to a junior agent, increasing wait times and decreasing customer satisfaction and resource efficiency (’420 Patent, col. 2:25-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that treats call routing as a dynamic auction. It models incoming calls and available agents as entities with distinct characteristics (e.g., caller needs, agent skills) and uses a processor to perform an "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, col. 3:1-4:13, Abstract). This optimization aims to maximize an "economic surplus" by considering not only the best skill match but also the "opportunity cost" of assigning a highly skilled agent to a simple task when a more complex call may be forthcoming (’420 Patent, Abstract). The system moves beyond static, sequential queuing to a real-time, multifactorial matching process, as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1, which details optimizing a cost-utility function for call center operations (’420 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from simple queuing logic to a more sophisticated, economic-based optimization for allocating telecommunication resources in real time (’420 Patent, col. 4:1-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more "exemplary method claims" of the ’420 Patent (Compl. ¶15). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative example.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for matching a first entity with at least one second entity selected from a plurality of second entities, comprising:
  • defining a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for the first entity and a plurality of multivalued scalar data of each of the plurality of second entities, representing respective characteristic parameters for each respective second entity; and
  • performing an automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus of a respective match of the first entity with the at least one of the plurality of second entities, and 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - "Intelligent communication routing system and method"

• Issued: November 26, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’420 Patent: the inefficiency of traditional call center routing systems that fail to account for the nuanced skills of agents and the specific needs of concurrent callers (’748 Patent, col. 2:25-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that determines an optimal routing path by maximizing an "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Abstract). It represents communications sources (e.g., callers) and targets (e.g., agents) by their "predicted characteristics" and uses these predictions to find the best match. This method allows for more dynamic and intelligent resource allocation than static routing rules (’748 Patent, col. 3:1-4:54). As with the related ’420 Patent, Figure 1 illustrates the core logic of optimizing a cost-utility function to select and route to an agent (’748 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for maximizing the overall utility of a communications network, treating each routing decision as a component of a larger optimization problem rather than an isolated event (’748 Patent, col. 4:1-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’748 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative example.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communications routing system, comprising a hardware processor configured to:
  • represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility;
  • represent a plurality of predicted characteristics of a plurality of communications targets each having an economic utility; and
  • determine an optimal routing between the plurality of communications sources and the plurality of communications targets, by maximizing an aggregate utility with respect to the respective predicted characteristics of communications source and communications destination represented by linkages.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

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

  • Issued: April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent title suggests a control system for telephony networks that employs intelligent algorithms to route calls, likely based on factors beyond simple call order to improve efficiency or effectiveness.
  • Asserted Claims: One or more "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products practice the technology claimed by the ’979 Patent but provides no specific product names or features beyond incorporating by reference the missing Exhibit 8 (Compl. ¶¶30, 32).

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

  • Issued: September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent has the same title as the ’979 Patent, indicating it likely covers related aspects of intelligent call routing technology within a telephony control system.
  • Asserted Claims: One or more "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products without identifying them, incorporating by reference the missing Exhibit 9 (Compl. ¶¶36, 38).

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

  • Issued: September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent has the same title as the ’420 Patent, suggesting it covers related technology for matching entities (e.g., callers and agents) using an auction-based optimization method.
  • Asserted Claims: One or more "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's products without identifying them, incorporating by reference the missing Exhibit 10 (Compl. ¶¶42, 47). The complaint further alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's product literature and website materials (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in Exhibits 6-10, which are incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶¶15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17, 26, 32, 38, 47). Based on the technology of the asserted patents, these products are alleged to be systems or methods for intelligent communication routing, such as those used in call centers. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market context of the accused products.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference in Exhibits 6-10 but does not attach them (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48). The following tables summarize the infringement theory for the lead patents by mapping the elements of a representative independent claim to the general functionalities the accused products are alleged to perform.

’420 Patent Infringement Allegations

’748 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the construction of abstract terms such as "economic surplus," "opportunity cost," and "aggregate utility." The patent specifications describe these concepts in the context of call centers (’420 Patent, col. 2:25-29). The dispute may turn on whether the functionality of Defendant’s accused products, once revealed, falls within the scope of these terms as construed by the court.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products perform "automated optimization" and "utility maximization." A key factual question will be whether the accused systems perform these specific, claimed multi-factorial calculations, or if they merely employ more conventional, rule-based routing that Plaintiff characterizes as infringement. The evidentiary burden will be on Plaintiff to demonstrate that the accused products operate in the manner required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization" (’420 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the invention from prior art routing methods. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's process qualifies as an "automated optimization" or a simpler form of logic. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a wide range of modern routing systems infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the optimization in general terms, such as a "global minimization of the cost function or the like," which could suggest any automated process that seeks a best outcome based on multiple variables is covered (’420 Patent, col. 4:8-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and claim 1 explicitly tie the optimization to calculating an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost." This language could support a narrower construction requiring the performance of specific economic calculations, not just any multifactorial analysis.

• The Term: "aggregate utility" (’748 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the objective of the claimed routing determination. The scope of "aggregate utility" will be critical, as it dictates what the accused system must be "maximizing." Infringement will hinge on whether Defendant's system calculates and seeks to maximize a comparable metric.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to optimizing for outcomes like "greatest efficiency, lowest cost, or other optimized variable," which could be construed broadly to cover various performance goals, not just a single, rigidly defined utility score (’748 Patent, col. 4:5-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses normalizing disparate factors into a common metric ("cost") and performing numeric analysis, including anticipated outcomes and opportunity costs (’748 Patent, col. 24:15-41). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a specific, unified cost-benefit calculation to determine the "aggregate utility."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant allegedly distributing "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).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, for the ’748 and ’086 Patents, it alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant continues to infringe despite this knowledge, which may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-suit infringement (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 44-45).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can abstract terms from the claims, such as "economic surplus" and "aggregate utility," rooted in the context of economic theory and call-center optimization, be construed to cover the specific routing algorithms implemented in Defendant's commercial systems? The case's trajectory will largely depend on how the court defines the boundaries of these non-standard claim terms.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does Plaintiff possess or can it obtain evidence demonstrating that Defendant's products perform the specific multi-part "automated optimization" required by the claims, or do they operate on a different technical principle, such as a series of simple, independent routing rules? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations shifts the focus to what discovery will reveal about the accused systems' actual functionality.