Patent Armory Inc v. Lands' End Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Lands' End, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00799, 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 unspecified customer contact and/or e-commerce systems infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based entity matching.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing the allocation of resources in communications networks, such as call centers, by using skill-based and economic factors to route incoming communications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Priority Date
2003-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Priority Date
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979 Issues
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issues
2025-09-23	Complaint Filed

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 inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple queuing logic (e.g., first-in, first-out) and static agent groupings. These legacy systems lead to problems such as routing calls to "under-skilled" agents who cannot handle the transaction or to "over-skilled" agents whose expertise is wasted on a simple call, reducing overall throughput (’979 Patent, col. 3:4 - 4:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that intelligently routes calls by computing an "optimum agent selection." Rather than relying on simple queues, the system analyzes a call’s characteristics, retrieves profiles of available agents, and uses an optimization algorithm to select the best agent. This optimization can be based on a multi-factor "cost-utility function" that considers not only agent skills but also long-term operational goals, such as providing training opportunities for less-experienced agents (’979 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 6:4-14).
• Technical Importance: This technology represented a move beyond rigid, sequential call distribution toward dynamic, multi-factor optimization for allocating telecommunication resources in real-time.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "exemplary method claims" of the ’979 Patent (Compl. ¶12). For analytical purposes, independent Claim 1 is representative of the system:
  • An input for receiving call classification information;
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics;
  • A processor for determining, with respect to the received call classification information, an optimum agent for association with a call based on a multivariate cost function comparing at least three agents;
  • The processor also controls the call routing based on the determination;
  • Wherein the determining and routing functions are performed within a common operating environment.
• 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 described in the related ’979 Patent, focusing on the problem of optimally matching incoming tasks (e.g., calls) with available resources (e.g., agents) (’086 Patent, col. 2:21 - col. 4:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention frames the resource allocation problem as an "auction." The system matches a "first entity" (e.g., a caller) with a "second entity" (e.g., an agent) by performing an "automated optimization with respect to an economic surplus" of the match. This optimization explicitly considers the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to a call, which accounts for the agent's unavailability for other potential matches (’086 Patent, Abstract; col. 63:45-64). This formalizes the matching process using principles from economic and auction theory.
• Technical Importance: This technology applies formal economic models, such as auction theory and opportunity cost analysis, to the technical problem of resource allocation in a communications network.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "exemplary claims" of the ’086 Patent (Compl. ¶18). For analytical purposes, independent Claim 1 is representative of the method:
  • Storing in a first memory a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters for a first subset of entities;
  • Storing in a second memory a plurality of multivalued scalar data representing characteristic parameters for a second subset of entities;
  • Performing, using an automated processor, an optimization 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 in dependence 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 product, service, or method by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶12, ¶18). However, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant's employees internally test and use these products (Compl. ¶13, ¶19). The patents-in-suit relate to intelligent call routing, which suggests the accused instrumentalities may be part of Defendant's customer service or sales call center infrastructure.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not provided, precluding a detailed, element-by-element analysis (Compl. ¶15, ¶24). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’979 and ’086 Patents (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). For the ’979 Patent, the complaint alleges Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, or importing these products (Compl. ¶12). For the ’086 Patent, the complaint alleges both direct infringement (Compl. ¶18) and induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes product literature and website materials that instruct end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be what logic Defendant's customer contact systems actually employ. Does the system's routing logic perform a simple, predetermined skill-based matching, or does it execute a dynamic, multi-factor optimization that could be characterized as the "multivariate cost function" required by the ’979 Patent?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key terms. A primary question for the ’086 Patent will be whether Defendant’s system performs an "auction" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost." The court will need to determine if these terms require a specific, formal economic calculation or if they can be construed more broadly to cover general-purpose optimization algorithms that implicitly balance competing resource demands.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,979

• The Term: "multivariate cost function" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system’s routing algorithm, whatever its specific implementation, qualifies as a "multivariate cost function." This determination depends on the complexity and type of factors the algorithm considers.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the function can incorporate a wide range of disparate factors, including not only agent skills but also "training and reward/punishment," which are normalized into a common metric of "cost" (’979 Patent, col. 65:15-24). This may support a broad reading that covers any algorithm balancing multiple, distinct inputs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific mathematical formulas, such as An=Max[Acn1∑(rsian,si)+Acn2] (’979 Patent, col. 65:1-3), which includes agent cost factors and summations of skill weights. A defendant may argue this implies the term requires a specific type of quantitative, cost-based optimization rather than just a qualitative balancing of factors.

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086

• The Term: "auction" (from Claim 1, as reflected in patent title)
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement of the ’086 Patent appears to depend on whether the accused system's matching process can be legally defined as an "auction." If the term is construed to require explicit bids or a formal market-clearing mechanism, it may be difficult to prove infringement; if construed more broadly as a metaphor for competitive resource allocation, the patent's scope would be significantly larger.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "auction" in the context of routing calls to agents and notes that the "optimization may be influenced by economic and non-economic factors" (’086 Patent, col. 63:60-64). This could support an interpretation where any system that algorithmically selects the "best" agent from a pool of competing candidates based on multiple factors is performing a type of "auction."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states that "potential recipients each submit a bid for the call, with the call being routed to the auction winner" (’086 Patent, col. 73:13-16). This language suggests a more literal interpretation requiring an actual bidding process, which a defendant may argue is absent from a standard call-routing system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant allegedly distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references Exhibit 4, which is not provided, for evidence of these materials.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’086 Patent based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶20-21). It alleges that despite this actual knowledge, Defendant continues to infringe. The prayer for relief also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle the plaintiff to attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶H.i).

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

This case appears to present two central questions for the court, both stemming from the complaint's high level of generality and lack of specific factual allegations.

1. A question of definitional scope: Can the technical operations of a modern customer service routing system be construed to meet the specific terminology of the patent claims? In particular, does the accused system’s logic perform a "multivariate cost function" (’979 Patent) or an "auction" that considers "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent’s specialized language and the functionality of the accused products?

2. An evidentiary question of technical operation: As the complaint provides no technical details about the accused products, the case will depend entirely on what evidence is produced during discovery. The key question will be whether Plaintiff can identify concrete features and algorithmic processes within Defendant’s systems that map onto the specific limitations of the asserted claims, particularly those related to multi-factor optimization and economic modeling.