DCT

3:24-cv-00236

Patent Armory Inc v. Thrivent Investment Management Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00236, W.D. Wis., 04/12/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Wisconsin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes five patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to computer-integrated telecommunications, specifically optimizing the routing of communications to agents in environments like call centers based on economic and skill-based criteria.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of an extensive patent family with a long prosecution history. U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420, for instance, is a continuation of an application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,860,391, which itself is a divisional of asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086. The family claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2003, suggesting a long-standing development effort in this technical area. The '420 patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-07 Earliest Priority Date for '979, '086, '420 Patents
2006-03-23 Priority Date for '253 Patent
2006-04-04 '979 Patent Issued
2007-09-11 '253 Patent Issued
2016-09-27 '086 Patent Issued
2017-10-30 Priority Date for '748 Patent
2019-03-19 '420 Patent Issued
2019-11-26 '748 Patent Issued
2024-04-12 Complaint Filed

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 inefficiencies of traditional call centers, which use static or simplistic routing rules (e.g., first-come-first-served) that fail to optimally match incoming calls to agents with specific, varying skill sets, leading to problems like under-skilled or over-skilled agent assignment ('420 Patent, col. 4:35-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) using an automated, auction-style optimization. This process defines "inferential targeting parameters" for the first entity and "characteristic parameters" for the second entities and then performs an optimization that considers both the "economic surplus" of a potential match and the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for other potential matches ('420 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:4-8). Figure 3 illustrates this architecture, where call classification vectors are processed against agent characteristics to enable an intelligent call router to make an optimized assignment ('420 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a move away from simple, queue-based call distribution towards a dynamic, economic model that performs complex optimizations within the low-level switching architecture itself to improve overall system efficiency ('420 Patent, col. 18:8-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748 - “Intelligent communication routing system and method,” issued November 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the shortcomings of traditional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) systems in call centers, highlighting the "under-skilled agent problem," the "over-skilled agent problem," and the "static grouping problem" as sources of inefficiency ('748 Patent, col. 3:35-4:34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications routing system that models both "communications sources" (e.g., callers) and "communications targets" (e.g., agents) using predicted characteristics, each associated with an "economic utility." The system then determines an optimal routing by "maximizing an aggregate utility" for all potential pairings, and a router executes the connection based on this determination ('748 Patent, Abstract). The process flow shown in Figure 1 demonstrates how the optimization strategy can adapt, for example, by using simple skill-based routing when the call center is near capacity versus a more complex training and skill-based routing when it is not ('748 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach formalizes call routing as an economic optimization problem, seeking to maximize overall system utility by incorporating factors such as long-term operational goals and agent training value, rather than focusing solely on immediate call-handling efficiency ('748 Patent, col. 27:9-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent method claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Representing a predicted characteristic of a plurality of communications sources, each having an economic utility.
    • Representing a predicted characteristic of a plurality of communications targets, each having an economic utility.
    • Determining, by a processor, an optimal routing by maximizing an aggregate utility.
    • The processor controlling a communications router to route communications based on the determined optimal routing.

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

  • 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 addresses inefficient call routing by describing a system with an input for receiving a communication's classification, a database of agent skill scores, and a processor. The processor computes an optimum agent selection by comparing the classification to the skill scores and directly controls the routing of the call to the selected agent based on the outcome ('979 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more" of the "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" without further specification (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,269,253, “Telephony control system with intelligent call routing,” issued September 11, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology concerns a method for processing communications requests by estimating a characteristic for each request, determining the availability of alternate target resources, and evaluating alternate allocations of requests to targets. The evaluation uses a ranking dependent on a "probabilistic predictive multivariate evaluator" based on the characteristics of both the request and the target ('253 Patent, Claim 20).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more" of the "exemplary method claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" without further specification (Compl. ¶36).

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

  • 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, from the same family as the '420 Patent, describes a method for matching entities using an auction-like process. It involves defining "inferential targeting parameters" for a first entity and "characteristic parameters" for second entities, then performing an automated optimization that considers both the "economic surplus" of a match and the "opportunity cost" of making a second entity unavailable for an alternative match ('086 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more" of the "exemplary claims" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" without further specification (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It incorporates by reference Exhibits 6-10, which allegedly detail the infringing functionality, but these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27, 32-33, 38-39, 47-48).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the '420, '748, '979, '253, and '086 patents and incorporates by reference claim chart Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively, which purportedly demonstrate how the "Exemplary Defendant Products" meet the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26, 32, 38, 47). These exhibits were not provided with the filed complaint. Because the complaint provides no narrative infringement theory beyond this incorporation, a detailed summary of the allegations is not possible and no claim chart table can be generated.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The asserted patents are heavily grounded in the technical field of high-volume, real-time telecommunications and call center management. A central question will be whether claim terms rooted in that context—such as "auction", "call routing", and "communications channels"—can be construed to read on the internal business processes of an investment management firm, as alleged. The defense may argue that the context of the patents limits their scope to the telecommunications domain, creating a definitional mismatch with Defendant's services.
    • Technical Questions: The asserted independent claims of the lead '420 and '748 Patents require specific, complex algorithmic steps, such as performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" ('420 Patent, Claim 1) or "maximizing an aggregate utility" ('748 Patent, Claim 1). A key technical question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused instrumentality performs these specific, mathematically defined optimizations, as opposed to employing more general business logic or qualitative rules for assigning work or clients.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,420

  • The Term: "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost" (from Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the claimed inventive method. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether Defendant's accused processes perform this specific, two-part economic calculation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific type of algorithm that may not be present in a general-purpose business workflow system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "entities" being matched in broad terms, not just limited to callers and agents, which could support application beyond traditional call centers ('420 Patent, col. 21:9-14). "Economic surplus" could be argued to encompass any quantifiable measure of value or efficiency, not strictly monetary gain ('420 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description is heavily situated in the call-center context ('420 Patent, col. 2:26-67). The specification provides complex mathematical formulas to calculate cost and utility, which a defendant may argue cabin the meaning of "automated optimization" to the specific types of calculations disclosed ('420 Patent, col. 24:1-65).

U.S. Patent No. 10,491,748

  • The Term: "maximizing an aggregate utility" (from Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central goal of the claimed routing method. The dispute will likely hinge on whether the accused system is shown to perform a mathematical maximization of a defined "utility" function, as opposed to simply applying a set of routing rules.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "utility" to include various factors, such as "caller satisfaction" and "training," suggesting it is not limited to a simple financial metric ('748 Patent, col. 31:30-34). This could support a reading on systems that balance multiple qualitative business goals.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that disparate factors are "normalized into a common metric, 'cost', which is then subject to numeric analysis" ('748 Patent, col. 23:19-22). A defendant may argue this requires a specific quantitative process of normalization and maximization that its system does not perform.

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 inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 45).
  • Willful Infringement: For the '748 and '086 Patents, the complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based solely on "The service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 44). This allegation, as pleaded, may only support a claim for willful infringement based on conduct occurring after the complaint was filed, as it does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents or the alleged infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological applicability: can patents describing solutions for high-volume, real-time call center routing be applied to the distinct operational environment and business processes of an investment management firm? The case may depend on whether the patent claims are interpreted as being limited to the telecommunications context in which they were developed.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic specificity: what discovery will reveal about the actual functioning of the accused systems? The dispute will likely focus on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant’s systems perform the specific, multi-factor economic calculations required by the claims (e.g., "maximizing an aggregate utility," balancing "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"), or if they operate based on more general business rules that do not meet these claim limitations.
  • A central procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: given that the complaint identifies no accused products and provides no narrative infringement theory apart from referencing un-filed exhibits, the initial phases of litigation may focus on motions challenging the adequacy of the infringement contentions under local patent rules and federal pleading standards.