United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
TALWANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
court previously allowed in part Defendant InfoBionic,
Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [#281], finding Claim 31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,
212, 850 (“'850 Patent”) and Claim 12 of U.S.
Patent 7, 907, 996 (“'996 Patent”) not patent
eligible as a matter of law under Section 101 of the Patent
Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mem. & Order [#289]. The court
requested additional briefing as to whether the claims were
representative of the '850 and '996 Patent claims.
Id. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion for
Reconsideration [#296] of the Memorandum &
Order [#289], a Memorandum [#297] in support of
Plaintiffs' motion and in response to the court's
request, and other papers. Defendant filed a Brief in
Support of Patent-Ineligibility and in Opposition to the
Motion for Reconsideration [#304], and other papers. For
the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES the motion for
reconsideration, and finds that the claims at issue are
representative of all claims in the '850 and '996
patents asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendant.
The Court's Prior Findings as to Claim 31 of the
'850 Patent and Claim 12 of the '996
Patent The court previously provided the following
overview of the Patents-at-issue:
The '850 and '996 Patents, titled “System and
Method for Processing and Presenting Arrhythmia Information
to Facilitate Heart Arrhythmia Identification and Treatment,
” share an identical specification and are directed to
a system and method of reporting arrhythmia events in
physiological data. U.S. Patent No. 7, 212, 850 col. 1 ll.
36-49 (filed May 1, 2007); U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 996 col. 1
ll. 39-54 (filed Mar. 15, 2011). The system receives
arrhythmia information both from a computer and from user
input from a monitoring system. U.S. Patent No. 7, 212, 850
col. 9 ll. 40-60; U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 996 col. 1 ll.
55-67. The system pictographically presents selective
information regarding the heart rate data during a defined
time period, based on the measure of correlation between the
computer-generated and the human-assessed data. U.S. Patent
No. 7, 212, 850 col. 1 ll. 40-49; U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 996
col. 1 ll. 40-49. The specifications provide that, by
employing pictographic presentations, the claimed invention
offers advantages over prior art; it purports to help medical
practitioners determine whether a patient is more likely to
experience an arrhythmia event at certain times of the day,
and the correlation of two sets of data is said to improve
the accuracy of the pictographic representation. U.S. Patent
No. 7, 212, 850 col 1. ll. 50-65; U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 996
col. 1 ll. 50-65.
& Order 10-11 [#289].
court then considered whether the claims from these two
patents cited in the Third Amended Complaint, Claim 31 of the
'850 Patent and Claim 12 of the '996 Patent, are
directed to a common-sense abstract idea, and concluded that
they were “directed to the abstract idea of correlating
one set of data to another.” Id. at 14. As the
Claim 31 of the '850 Patent and Claim 12 of the '996
Patent, read in conjunction with the patent specifications,
recite a system that receives computer-generated
“arrhythmia information from the monitoring system and
. . . human-assessed arrhythmia information from the
monitoring station, ” U.S. Patent No. 7, 212, 850 col.
9 ll. 48-51, to “selectively present information
regarding the identified events based on the measure of
correlation” between the two sets of information, U.S.
Patent No. 7, 907, 996 col. 1 ll. 45-47. The claimed system
is analogous to a medical professional analyzing the
physiological data and comparing his or her assessment with a
colleague's second opinion. The medical professional also
consolidates his or her assessment with that of his or her
colleague, based on the same physiological data, to arrive at
a more accurate diagnosis. This suggests that the claims are
directed to the abstract idea of “a longstanding,
well-known method of organizing human behavior, ” where
a computer only facilitates such existing practices.
Bascom [Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC], 827 F.3d [1341, ] 1348 [(Fed. Cir. 2016)].
These claims are similar to the claim in Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2014). . . . The Federal Circuit concluded that
the claim was an “ineligible abstract process of
gathering and combining data” and that “the two
data sets and the resulting device profile are ineligible
subject matter.” Id. Like the claim in
Digitech, the process in Claim 31 of the '850
Patent and Claim 12 of the '996 Patent of
“manipulat[ing] existing information to generate
additional information is not patent eligible.”
Id. Claim 31 of the '850 Patent and Claim 12 of
the '996 Patent point to a system that combines
computer-generated data with human-generated data to produce
a pictographic representation.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant relies on an overly broad
construction of the claim by describing it as a correlation
of the two sets of data. According to Plaintiffs, the claims
are directed to specific inventions in the mobile cardiac
telemetry field, similar to the claims in Enfish[, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
However, Claim 31 of the '850 Patent and Claim 12 of the
'996 Patent are distinguishable from those at issue in
Enfish. In Enfish, the claimed invention
sought to improve a specific computer functionality-namely,
the existing logical model of generating data table. 822 F.3d
at 1330. Additionally, the specifications explicitly provided
that the patented invention was an improvement to the
conventional database structure. Id. at 1337. In
contrast, Plaintiffs do not point to an existing computer
functionality that the claimed invention seeks to improve but
instead argue that the claimed invention improves the
entire field of mobile telemetry. Further, rather
than describing the claimed invention as a specific computer
functionality, the specifications for the '850 and
'996 Patents describe them as improvements to “a
system for reporting information.” U.S. Patent No. 7,
212, 850 col. 2 ll. 25-26; U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 996 col. 2
ll. 30-31. Furthermore, the specifications simply point out
that this patented system “can be implemented
using, for example, the CardioNet Mobile Cardiac
Outpatient Telemetry (MCOT) device.” U.S. Patent No. 7,
212, 850 col. 2 ll. 40-44; U.S. Patent No. 7, 907, 996 col. 2
ll. 45-48 (emphases added).
Id. at 12-14.
court then considered Defendant's argument that Claim 31
of the '850 Patent and Claim 12 of the '996 Patent do
not add an inventive concept because they “recite only
conventional hardware or routine steps” such as a
“monitoring system, ” “monitoring station,
” “processing system” and “software,
” and Plaintiffs' response that an ordered
combination of the limitations provided an inventive concept.
Id. at 14. The court found that the two claims at
issue do not add an inventive concept sufficient to be
patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101.
Id. at 16. As the court explained:
Plaintiffs . . . fail to articulate [an inventive concept];
they point instead to findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board that Defendant “failed to demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of
[the] claims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
However, these findings relate to challenges to patentability
under Section 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 103,
not under Section 101. InfoBionic, Inc. v. Braemer [sic]
Mfg., LLC, No. IPR2015-01705 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016);
InfoBionic, Inc. v. Braemer [sic] Mfg., LLC, No.
IPR2015-01704 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016).
Claim 31 of the '850 Patent and Claim 12 of the '996
Patent purport to provide for a scheme that generates a
graphic presentation of the combined data by instituting a
monitoring system that receives data inputs from a computer,
a physician, and a processing system that can correlate the
two sets of data. U.S. Patent No. 7, 212, 850 col. 1 ll.
50-65; id. at col. 9 ll. 40-60; U.S. Patent No. 7,
907, 996 col. 1 ll. 55-67. However, medical professionals
long have analyzed physiological data, sought a second
opinion to improve accuracy, and identified arrhythmia events
from the physiological data. Therefore, the system merely
“automate[s] or otherwise make[s] more efficient”
traditional methods or techniques existing in the medical
field. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). While the process ...