Patent Armory Inc v. Alto Experience Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Alto Experience, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-01065, N.D. Tex., 04/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's products and services infringe two U.S. patents related to intelligent call routing for telephony systems and auction-based methods for matching entities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of computer-telephony integration (CTI) and resource allocation, focusing on optimizing the assignment of tasks, such as routing customer calls to the most suitable agent in a call center.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings 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 Issue Date
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 Issue Date
2026-04-02	Complaint Filing Date

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 ('979 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes significant inefficiencies in traditional call center management, such as the "under-skilled agent problem" where agents lack sufficient skills for a transaction, and the "over-skilled agent problem" where highly skilled agents are inefficiently assigned to simple tasks '979 Patent, col. 4:25-56 The patent notes that static agent groupings and simple routing rules fail to adapt to the changing pace and mix of transactions in a typical call center '979 Patent, col. 4:57-67
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communications management system that integrates intelligent decision-making directly into the low-level call switching architecture '979 Patent, col. 59:8-21 Instead of relying on a separate, high-level computer system, this integrated system receives a "communications classification" for an incoming call and uses databases of agent skill scores and skill weights to compute an "optimum agent selection" in real-time, directly controlling the call's routing '979 Patent, abstract This process is depicted in a flowchart in Figure 1, which illustrates optimizing a cost-utility function to select an agent '979 Patent, Fig. 1
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to reduce latencies and architectural complexity by co-locating the "intelligence" for routing with the voice-channel switching hardware, enabling more sophisticated, real-time optimization of call center resources '979 Patent, col. 60:27-34

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead referring to the "Exemplary '979 Patent Claims" detailed in a non-proffered exhibit Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶14 Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
  • A communications control system within a common operating environment.
  • An input for receiving "call classification information."
  • A data structure representing "agent characteristics."
  • A processor that determines an "optimum agent" based on a "multivariate cost function" that compares at least three agents.
  • The processor controls the call routing, with the determination and routing functions performed within the common operating environment.

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,086 - "Method and system for matching entities in an auction," issued September 27, 2016 ('086 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background, shared with the '979 Patent, details the challenges of efficiently matching incoming calls with appropriately skilled agents in a dynamic call center environment, citing issues of agent under-utilization and poor customer service '086 Patent, col. 2:22-col. 3:32
• The Patented Solution: The invention frames the matching problem as an auction. It describes a method for matching a "first entity" (e.g., a customer call) with a "second entity" (e.g., a call center agent) by performing an automated optimization '086 Patent, abstract This optimization is based on maximizing an "economic surplus" derived from the match, while also considering the "opportunity cost" of making that specific agent unavailable for other potential matches '086 Patent, abstract The system uses multivalued scalar data to represent both "inferential targeting parameters" for the first entity and "characteristic parameters" for the second entity to inform the optimization '086 Patent, abstract '086 Patent, Fig. 8
• Technical Importance: By modeling resource allocation as an auction that considers economic surplus and opportunity cost, the invention provides a formal framework for making globally optimal matching decisions in real-time, moving beyond simple skill-based routing to account for broader economic efficiencies '086 Patent, col. 73:5-13

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, referring to the "Exemplary '086 Patent Claims" in a non-proffered exhibit Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶23 Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
  • A method for matching a first subset of entities with a second subset.
  • Storing "multivalued scalar data representing inferential targeting parameters" for the first subset.
  • Storing "multivalued scalar data...representing respective characteristic parameters" for the second subset.
  • Performing an optimization using 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 other matches.
  • Outputting a signal dependent on the optimization.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products, methods, or services by name Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶18
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶23 These exhibits were not provided with the complaint. Based on the subject matter of the patents-in-suit, the accused instrumentalities are presumably related to call center management, customer service platforms, or other enterprise-level resource allocation systems. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement based on claim-chart comparisons included in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶24 As such, a detailed claim-chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

'979 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe by practicing the patented technology Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶14 The implicit theory, based on an analysis of claim 1, is that the accused products constitute a communications control system that receives information classifying an incoming task (e.g., a customer call), accesses a data structure of available resources (e.g., agents), and uses a processor to execute a "multivariate cost function" to determine and route the task to the optimal agent, all within a common operating environment.

'086 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly and indirectly infringes the '086 Patent Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶22 The narrative theory for direct infringement, based on an analysis of claim 1, is that the accused products and methods involve storing data representing tasks (a "first subset") and resources (a "second subset") and using a processor to perform an optimization. This optimization allegedly calculates an "economic surplus" for a potential match while also accounting for the "opportunity cost" of that match, thereby infringing the claimed method.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint's allegations are conclusory and depend entirely on non-proffered exhibits, a primary point of contention will be the evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate the specific, internal functionality of the accused systems. What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's system performs a "multivariate cost function" or an optimization based on "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the routine resource-allocation logic in a modern software platform can be characterized as performing the specific optimization methods claimed. For example, does a system that prioritizes tasks based on a set of weighted rules perform a "multivariate cost function" as the '979 Patent may require, or an "economic surplus" calculation as the '086 Patent may require?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '979 Patent

• The Term: "multivariate cost function"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the optimization process in claim 1. The definition will be critical to determining whether the logic used in the accused system meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific mathematical formula or can encompass a broader range of rule-based decision-making processes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the function normalizes "disparate factors" into a common metric of "cost," including factors like agent salary, training costs, and even reward or punishment for performance, which may support a broad, qualitative interpretation '979 Patent, col. 65:10-25
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific formula: An=Max[Acn1∑(rsians1)+Acn2], which includes agent cost factors and a summation of skill weights and scores '979 Patent, col. 65:1-5 A defendant may argue that the term should be construed as being limited to this or a similar explicit mathematical optimization.

For the '086 Patent

• The Term: "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost"
• Context and Importance: These terms define the inputs to the core optimization step of claim 1. Their construction will determine what type of calculation the accused method must perform to infringe. These are terms of art in economics, but their meaning within the patent's specific context of entity matching will be a central issue.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and abstract use the terms in a general sense, suggesting they could be applied broadly to any system that models a trade-off between the value of a present match and the value of potential future matches '086 Patent, abstract '086 Patent, claim 1
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention in the context of call centers '086 Patent, col. 1:1-14 '086 Patent, col. 2:22-32 A defendant may argue that the terms should be construed narrowly in light of these specific embodiments, for example, where "opportunity cost" is tied directly to the unavailability of a specific agent for another incoming call.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the '086 Patent Compl. ¶22 The basis for this allegation is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶21
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement of the '086 Patent at least since the service of the complaint Compl. ¶20 This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Functionality: Given the complaint's reliance on non-proffered exhibits, the central issue will be what facts emerge from discovery. Does the evidence demonstrate that the accused products' internal software architecture actually performs the specific, multi-factor optimizations-whether a "multivariate cost function" ('979 Patent) or a calculation of "economic surplus" and "opportunity cost" ('086 Patent)-as required by the asserted claims?
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of the core technical terms in the independent claims. Can Plaintiff convince the court that terms like "multivariate cost function" and "economic surplus" should be interpreted broadly enough to read on the functionality of the accused systems, or will Defendant succeed in arguing for a narrower construction tied to the specific formulas and embodiments disclosed in the patents?
3. A Question of Indirect Infringement: For the '086 Patent, a key question will be whether the "product literature and website materials" cited by the Plaintiff contain specific instructions that actively encourage and direct users to perform all the steps of the claimed method, thereby establishing the requisite intent for inducement.