Patent Armory Inc v. Norse Atlantic Airways US LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Norse Atlantic Airways US LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BEUSSE SANKS, PLLC
• Case Identification: 0:26-cv-60265, S.D. Fla., 01/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Southern District of Florida and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services used by Defendant, an airline, infringe two patents related to intelligent call routing and auction-based systems for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for optimizing the operation of communications centers, such as customer service call centers, by using algorithms to match incoming communications with the most suitable available agent based on skill sets and other factors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review 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,” issued April 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies in traditional call centers that use simple routing logic, such as first-come-first-served. These systems can result in mismatches between a caller's needs and an agent's abilities, leading to problems categorized as the "under-skilled agent," "over-skilled agent," and "static grouping" issues, which reduce transactional throughput ’979 Patent, col. 4:24-67
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intelligent switching architecture where the skill-based routing algorithm is executed at a low level within the Computer Telephony Integrated (CTI) system itself, rather than by a separate high-level management system ’979 Patent, col. 20:35-41 As illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 1, the system analyzes call characteristics and agent profiles to compute an "optimum agent selection" using a "multivariate cost function," which normalizes disparate factors into a common "cost" metric for comparison ’979 Patent, col. 63:45-64:3; Fig. 1
• Technical Importance: By integrating the intelligent decision-making process into the low-level communications server, the invention sought to reduce the latency, communications bandwidth, and architectural complexity associated with systems that separate high-level policy management from low-level call switching ’979 Patent, col. 59:30-34

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims" ’Compl. ¶12 Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A communications control system with a common operating environment.
  • An input for receiving call classification information.
  • A data structure representing agent characteristics.
  • A processor for determining an optimum agent for a call based on a multivariate cost function that compares at least three agents.
  • The processor also controls the call routing in dependence on the determination.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims Compl. ¶12

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of efficiently matching a first entity (e.g., a customer call) with the best available second entity (e.g., a service agent) from a pool of candidates, particularly in environments with multiple concurrent demands ’086 Patent, col. 1:21-2:65
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method that models this matching problem as an "auction." It performs an automated optimization that considers not only the direct value of a potential match (the "economic surplus") but also the "opportunity cost" of assigning a particular agent to one call when that agent might be a better fit for another pending call ’086 Patent, col. 65:43-66:12 This allows for a more global optimization across the entire system of pending requests.
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution extends beyond a simple "best match" for an individual task to a system-wide optimization that balances the needs of all concurrent tasks, aiming to maximize the overall utility of the call center's resources.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’086 Patent Compl. ¶18 Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
• Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • Storing data representing "inferential targeting parameters" for a first subset of entities (e.g., calls).
  • Storing data representing "characteristic parameters" for a second subset of entities (e.g., agents).
  • Performing 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 based on the optimization.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶18

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" Compl. ¶12, ¶18

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality. It alleges that Defendant Norse Atlantic Airways US LLC makes, uses, sells, or imports these products but does not describe what they are or how they operate, instead incorporating by reference claim charts from exhibits not attached to the publicly filed document Compl. ¶14-15, ¶23-24 Given that the Defendant is an airline, the accused products may relate to its customer service call centers, flight operations, or booking systems.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that are not provided in the filed document. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

• ’979 Patent Infringement Allegations:
  The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe one or more claims of the ’979 Patent by practicing the claimed technology Compl. ¶14 The infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's systems employ an intelligent call routing method that satisfies all elements of the asserted claims Compl. ¶14
• ’086 Patent Infringement Allegations:
  The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly and indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’086 Patent Compl. ¶18, ¶22 The infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's systems perform a method of matching entities (such as callers and agents) in a manner that satisfies all elements of the asserted claims, including the performance of an auction-like optimization Compl. ¶23

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • A primary factual question will be the actual architecture and operational logic of the accused "Exemplary Defendant Products." Discovery will be required to determine whether Defendant’s systems perform the specific optimization and routing steps described in the patents.
  • For the ’979 Patent, a point of contention may be whether Defendant's system uses a "multivariate cost function" as claimed, or a simpler routing rule. A further question may be whether any such functionality is integrated into a "common operating environment" with the call switching, as claim 1 requires.
  • For the ’086 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether Defendant's system performs an "auction" that considers not only the quality of a single proposed match ("economic surplus") but also the system-wide "opportunity cost" of that match, as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "multivariate cost function" (’979 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed optimization process. Its construction will define the level of algorithmic complexity a system must possess to infringe. The dispute may turn on whether a simple set of weighted rules qualifies, or if a more complex, normalized calculation is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the cost function can incorporate a wide variety of "disparate factors," including training costs, rewards, punishments, and anticipated outcomes, which could support an argument that any function weighing more than one such factor meets the definition ’979 Patent, col. 65:13-24
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary formula, ‘An=Max[Acn1∑(rsian,si)+Acn2]’, and explains that the "key here is that all of these disparate factors are normalized into a common metric, 'cost'" ’979 Patent, col. 65:3-4, 65:21-23 This could support a narrower construction requiring a function that explicitly normalizes different types of inputs into a single "cost" value for comparison.

• The Term: "opportunity cost" (’086 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from a simple "best-match" system. Infringement hinges on whether the accused system considers the system-wide consequences of a single match, not just the merits of that match in isolation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that in some instances it is "preferred to assign more specialized agents to matters that they can handle, rather than assigning multitalented agents" ’086 Patent, col. 65:49-53 A party might argue that any system with a policy of reserving certain agents for certain tasks inherently considers "opportunity cost."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines the term as the "opportunity cost for allocating agent n to the particular call" and describes a global optimization comparing "all of the cost functions for the matters in the queue with respect to each permissible pairing of agent and matter" ’086 Patent, col. 65:61-66:2 This language suggests a requirement for an active, contemporaneous comparison across multiple pending tasks, rather than a static agent reservation policy.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’086 Patent. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" Compl. ¶21
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge or willfulness. It alleges that the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" Compl. ¶20 This allegation forms the basis for a potential claim of willful infringement for any infringing activity that continues after the complaint was served Compl. ¶21

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of detail, the case will turn on what discovery reveals about the technical operation of the accused "Exemplary Defendant Products." The viability of Plaintiff’s infringement claims depends entirely on whether the undisclosed technical details of Defendant's systems align with the specific optimization and matching processes required by the patent claims.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "auction" in the ’086 Patent, which involves optimizing for "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost," be construed to read on a commercial airline's customer service routing system? The answer may depend on whether the system is found to perform a competitive, system-wide resource allocation or merely a sequential, best-available assignment for each incoming call.