Patent Armory Inc v. Llbean Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: L.L.Bean Inc. (Maine)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00798, W.D. Wis., 09/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Wisconsin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer service and/or call center systems infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The patents concern technologies for optimizing the assignment of tasks in a a call center, moving beyond simple queuing to complex, skill-based, and economic-based matching algorithms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention 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. 7,023,979 - "Telephony control system with intelligent call routing"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of conventional call center systems that use simple routing logic like "first-come-first-served" (’979 Patent, col. 2:41-49). This approach can lead to an "under-skilled agent" problem, where a caller is connected to an agent unable to resolve their issue, or an "over-skilled agent" problem, where a specialist's time is inefficiently used on a simple task (’979 Patent, col. 4:25-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communications management system that intelligently routes calls by computing an "optimum agent selection" based on the call's characteristics and available agents' skills (’979 Patent, Abstract). The system moves beyond simple routing by optimizing a "cost-utility function," which can balance short-term efficiency with long-term goals such as agent training, as illustrated in the decision logic of Figure 1 (’979 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:50-55).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static, queue-based call distribution to dynamic, multi-factor optimization designed to improve a call center's overall efficiency and resource utilization (’979 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary method claims (Compl. ¶12). The first independent method claim is Claim 11.
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • receiving a communications classification;
  • accessing a database of skill weights with respect to the communications classification;
  • accessing a database of agent skill scores;
  • computing, with respect to the received communication classification, an optimum agent selection; and
  • directly controlling a routing of the information representing the received call.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same call center inefficiencies as the ’979 Patent but frames the challenge as a broader problem of matching different types of entities (’086 Patent, col. 1:17-21). Conventional systems are described as lacking a sophisticated mechanism to account for the economic trade-offs inherent in resource allocation (’086 Patent, col. 4:45-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for matching a first entity (e.g., a caller) with a second entity (e.g., an agent) by performing an automated optimization (’086 Patent, Abstract). This optimization is explicitly based on economic principles, calculating an "economic surplus" for a potential match while also factoring in the "opportunity cost" of making that second entity unavailable for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:45-64:1). This reframes the routing decision as a formal auction-like mechanism.
• Technical Importance: This approach advances skill-based routing by incorporating formal economic modeling, allowing a system to make allocation decisions that are not just technically adequate but also economically optimal for the organization (’086 Patent, col. 65:1-66:23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary claims (Compl. ¶18). Independent Claim 1 is a method claim.
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • Storing in memory multivalued scalar data for a first subset of entities (e.g., calls) representing "inferential targeting parameters."
  • Storing in memory multivalued scalar data for a second subset of entities (e.g., agents) representing "characteristic parameters."
  • Performing an optimization with an automated processor with respect to at least an "economic surplus" of a match and an "opportunity cost" of the unavailability of the second subset for an alternate match.
  • Outputting a signal based on the optimization.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim chart exhibits not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and/or imports these unspecified products (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). The nature of the asserted patents and the Defendant's business suggests the accused instrumentalities are likely customer service systems, call center platforms, or related technologies used by L.L.Bean to manage customer interactions. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that are not provided with the complaint document; therefore, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below in prose and the standard claim-chart tables are omitted (Compl. ¶¶14-15, 23-24).

For both the ’979 and ’086 Patents, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). The infringement allegations rely entirely on the contents of the unprovided exhibits.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions (’979 Patent): A central question will be whether Defendant’s systems perform the claimed step of “computing... an optimum agent selection” (’979 Patent, col. 85:36-39). Discovery will likely focus on whether the accused system’s logic goes beyond conventional routing (e.g., longest-idle agent) to perform a multi-factor optimization as described in the patent’s specification.
  • Scope Questions (’086 Patent): The infringement analysis for the ’086 Patent may turn on the scope of the claim phrase “optimization with respect to at least an economic surplus... and an opportunity cost” (’086 Patent, col. 75:20-25). A key dispute may be whether Defendant's system performs an explicit calculation of these economic values, or if Plaintiff will argue that the system's logic implicitly accounts for such factors, raising the question of whether such an implicit consideration meets the claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: “optimum agent selection” (from ’979 Patent, Claim 11)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core functional step of the asserted method. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the logic used in the accused system infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes the invention from prior art routing methods.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mathematical basis for the optimization, which could support an argument that any method selecting an agent based on a combination of skill scores and weights meets the limitation (’979 Patent, col. 85:30-39).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes optimizing a “cost-utility function” that can balance short-term efficiency with long-term goals like agent training (’979 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:50-55). This could support an argument that "optimum" requires more than just selecting the most skilled available agent and must incorporate these additional strategic factors.

• The Term: “economic surplus” and “opportunity cost” (from ’086 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: These terms define the specific economic-based optimization that distinguishes the ’086 Patent. The viability of the infringement case will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can prove the accused system calculates these specific metrics.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not mandate a single, rigid formula for these terms. Plaintiff may argue that any system logic that prioritizes high-value calls for expert agents, thereby implicitly valuing the "opportunity cost" of using that agent on a low-value call, satisfies the claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes these terms as part of a formal optimization to "maximize a predicted aggregate economic surplus value" (’086 Patent, col. 76:59-63). This suggests the terms are not abstract concepts but quantifiable inputs to an algorithm, potentially requiring proof of specific calculations in the accused system's source code or design documents.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on infringing uses (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges this conduct has occurred "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the ’086 Patent at least since the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶20). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge for either patent-in-suit. This suggests any claim for willful infringement or inducement would be based on conduct occurring after the filing of the lawsuit.

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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint provides no specific factual allegations of infringement and relies entirely on unprovided exhibits, a key question is what evidence Plaintiff will be able to produce in discovery to demonstrate that Defendant’s unspecified systems perform the specific, multi-step computational methods required by the asserted claims.

2. The case may turn on a question of technical and definitional scope, particularly for the ’086 Patent: Can the claim limitation requiring an optimization based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" be met by a system that performs sophisticated, skill-based routing, or does the claim require proof of a distinct and explicit economic calculation that may not be present in conventional call center platforms?