Patent Armory Inc v. Mercury Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Mercury Systems, Inc. (MA)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01582, E.D. Va., 09/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in Arlington, Virginia, within the district. The complaint also asserts that acts of infringement occurred in the district and that Plaintiff suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing for telecommunications systems and methods for matching entities in an auction.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies for optimizing the matching of communications (e.g., customer calls) with resources (e.g., call center agents) by analyzing various factors and performing cost-benefit calculations, a key function in modern customer relationship management (CRM) and telecommunications infrastructure.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: 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 describes the challenge in call centers of efficiently handling customer contacts while providing high-quality service, noting the limitations of traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems that often result in routing calls to "under-skilled" or "over-skilled" agents (’420 Patent, col. 2:26-35; col. 4:35-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with an optimal "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) from a pool of available options. This is achieved by defining data profiles for each entity and performing an automated optimization that considers not only the quality of the match but also the "opportunity cost" of making a particular agent unavailable for a subsequent, potentially more suitable match (’420 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables a shift from static, queue-based call routing to a more dynamic, economically optimized model that can improve both resource utilization and customer experience in high-volume communication environments (’420 Patent, col. 3:4-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary method claims without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • A method of pairing requests, comprising:
  • estimating at least one content-specific or requestor-specific characteristic associated with a request;
  • determining a set of available partners, each having at least one respective partner characteristic;
  • evaluating, with at least one automated processor, a plurality of pairings of the request with a plurality of different available partners, according to an evaluator for valuing pairings of the request with respective available partners; and
  • generating a control signal, by the at least one automated processor, selectively dependent on the evaluating.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶15).

---

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748, "Intelligent communication routing system and method", issued November 26, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the inefficiencies of conventional call center routing systems, which typically rely on simple rules like "first-in, first-out" or "longest-idle-agent," failing to account for the specific skills needed for a particular call or the varying capabilities of available agents (’420 Patent, col. 3:11-34).
• The Patented solution: The invention describes a routing system that determines an optimal path between communication sources and targets by representing the characteristics of each and maximizing an "aggregate utility." (’748 Patent, Abstract). This optimization is performed within a low-level communications control system, allowing for real-time, intelligent routing decisions that can incorporate factors beyond simple queuing, such as agent training needs and other business goals (’420 Patent, col. 18:9-24; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By integrating intelligent, optimization-based routing into the core communications architecture rather than a high-level management system, the invention aims to reduce latency and enable more sophisticated, real-time matching of callers to agents (’420 Patent, col. 25:15-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • A communications management system, comprising:
  • an input for receiving a communications classification;
  • a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification;
  • a database of agent skill scores; and
  • a processor for computing an optimum agent selection based on the received communication classification, and directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

---

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 April 4, 2006 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications management system for a call center. It receives a classification for an incoming communication and computes an optimal agent selection by referencing databases of skill weights and agent skill scores, directly controlling the call routing based on this computation (’979 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent but does not identify specific features (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

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 September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to an intelligent call routing system. The technology involves optimizing the matching of communications to agents in a call center by considering a cost-benefit analysis and predicted agent availability, thereby moving beyond simple queue-based assignment (’253 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent but does not identify specific features (Compl. ¶36, ¶38).

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 September 27, 2016 (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for matching entities by defining data profiles for each and performing an automated optimization. The optimization considers the "economic surplus" of a potential match as well as the "opportunity cost" of making a resource unavailable for other potential matches, a process particularly applicable to call center routing (’086 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the patent 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 as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in chart exhibits (Compl. ¶15, ¶21, ¶30, ¶36, ¶42). These exhibits were not provided.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts (Exhibits 6-10) that allegedly detail infringement of the patents-in-suit but does not provide these exhibits (Compl. ¶18, ¶27, ¶33, ¶39, ¶48). The complaint's narrative asserts in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26, ¶32, ¶38, ¶47). Without the claim charts or a more detailed description of the accused products, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused products perform the specific optimization and routing functions required by the claims. For instance, for the ’420 Patent, a key question is what evidence exists that the accused products perform an "automated optimization" that calculates both an "economic surplus" and an "opportunity cost," as the claim requires.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key terms. For example, for the ’748 Patent, a question is whether the defendant's system, which may perform some form of routing, meets the claim limitation of "computing an optimum agent selection" using the specific inputs of a "communications classification," a "database of skill weights," and a "database of agent skill scores."

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus...and an opportunity cost" (from ’420 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the central functional step of the asserted method in the ’420 Patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend entirely on whether Defendant's system is found to perform this specific two-part optimization. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than a simple best-match algorithm.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the concepts can be applied broadly, stating that the optimization may be influenced by "economic and non-economic factors" and may include "objective and subjective factors" (’420 Patent, col. 22:64-66). This could support an argument that any multi-faceted, cost-benefit routing calculation meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific formulas for calculating cost functions, such as An=Max({[Acn1Σ(rs1ans1)+Acn2]+Bcn}+Ccn)+Dcn), which explicitly includes an opportunity cost term Dcn (’420 Patent, col. 24:50-54). A party could argue that the claim requires an optimization that performs a calculation analogous to this specific embodiment, rather than any general balancing of factors.

---

• The Term: "computing an optimum agent selection" (from ’748 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core processing step of the claimed system. The dispute will likely focus on what constitutes an "optimum" selection and whether the accused system's computation qualifies. Practitioners may focus on this term because "optimum" can be a limiting requirement if not defined broadly in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The related ’420 Patent specification describes optimization in flexible terms, noting it can be influenced by factors like "training and reward/punishment" and that the "system may also intelligently analyze and control other aspects of telecommunications besides call routing" (’420 Patent, col. 24:1-3; col. 22:66-23:1). This may support a construction where "optimum" is context-dependent and not a mathematical absolute.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of optimization based on maximizing a specific numerical "score" derived from applying a rule vector to agent skill vectors (’748 Patent, col. 39:5-16; Tables 1-2). A party could argue that "optimum" requires a system that calculates and selects the single highest-scoring agent according to such a defined, quantitative process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’748 and ’086 Patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers and end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶24, ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for the ’748 and ’086 Patents based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶23, ¶44). This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willful infringement only, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "automated optimization," which the patent specification links to calculations of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," be construed to cover the routing algorithms used in Defendant's unidentified products? The case may depend on whether the patent claims a specific multi-factor calculation or a more general concept of intelligent resource allocation.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence will be presented to show that Defendant’s systems actually perform the specific computational steps recited in the claims? Because the complaint lacks detail on the accused products, discovery will be critical in establishing the precise functionality of the accused systems and comparing it to the claim language.
• A further question will be one of intent: for the indirect infringement claims, what specific instructions in Defendant’s product literature and website materials will Plaintiff identify as actively encouraging users to perform the claimed methods of intelligent routing or auction-based matching?