DCT
2:19-cv-04752
Optima Direct LLC v. GlobalMedia Group LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Optima Direct, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: GlobalMedia Group, LLC (Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Heurlin Sherlock, PC; Brandt Law Firm
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-04752, D. Ariz., 07/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because the Defendant resides in, regularly conducts business in, and has a principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telemedicine hardware and software platforms infringe a patent related to systems for creating electronic medical records during clinician house calls using portable equipment.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of telemedicine and telehealth, which involves providing remote clinical services and managing patient data through telecommunications technology.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority through a long chain of continuation and divisional applications, suggesting a potentially complex prosecution history that may be relevant to claim scope interpretation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-07-06 | Earliest Priority Date ('868 Patent) |
| 2013-01-01 | Accused telemedicine program initiated by customer |
| 2018-05-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,971,868 Issued |
| 2019-07-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,971,868, "Method for Providing Electronic Medical Records Utilizing Portable Computing and Communications Equipment," issued May 15, 2018. (’868 Patent, p.1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulties that "aged, infirm, or other homebound patients" face in accessing a physician's office, as well as the high cost and inefficiency of emergency rooms for conditions that are not life-threatening. (’868 Patent, col. 1:62-66; col. 2:5-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for reviving the clinician "house call" by equipping mobile clinicians with portable computing devices and an assortment of electronic diagnostic tools. (’868 Patent, Abstract). A central "clinician device" (a portable computer) communicates wirelessly to download patient records from a central repository, interfaces with on-site diagnostic equipment (e.g., an x-ray machine or laboratory analyzer) to collect patient data during the visit, and transmits the compiled reports and records back to a central medical record center, as depicted in the system architecture of Figure 1. (’868 Patent, col. 3:3-22; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This technical approach sought to decentralize acute medical care by bringing advanced diagnostic capabilities and electronic record-keeping directly to a patient's location, thereby improving access and convenience. (’868 Patent, col. 2:27-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of at least independent claim 15. (Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
- (a) a clinician computer for being located generally in the proximity of the patient;
- (b) at least one internet-capable medical care device (including heart monitors, dialysis machinery, etc.) for monitoring ongoing patient information and transmitting reports via the internet;
- (c) at least one on-site electronic medical care device (including an electrocardiograph machine, pulse oximeter, laboratory analyzer, or x-ray machine) for sending patient information to the clinician computer during an at-home visit;
- (d) a wireless interface in the clinician computer for wirelessly receiving the on-site patient information; and
- (e) the clinician computer for assembling outputs and reports to provide a record of the at-home patient visit. (’868 Patent, col. 17:35 - col. 18:2).
- The prayer for relief requests a judgment that the Defendant has infringed "one or more claims," suggesting the possibility that additional claims may be asserted later. (Compl. p. 3, Prayer for Relief ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant's "eNcounter software, Littman Electronic Stethoscopes, the Transportable Exam Station, and ClinicalAccess Station." (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as constituting a telemedicine system. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 1). The Transportable Exam Station (TES) is a "fully mobile telemedicine platform with a military-grade ruggedized tablet" housed in a rolling case, which can integrate with various peripheral medical devices. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 2). A screenshot from a product sheet for the TES shows it is a portable, self-contained unit for field use. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 2). The ClinicalAccess Station is a larger, cart-based workstation for similar purposes. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 3). The eNcounter software platform provides the user interface and data management functions for the system. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 1). The complaint alleges the system is used in diverse settings, including for care of "Native Americans living in the Grand Canyon," by the "President of the United States," and in school-based telemedicine programs. (Compl. Ex. B, pp. 1, 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’868 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for communicating patient information comprising; | The "Infringing System" is sold for "remotely communicating patient information." | ¶12; Ex. B, p. 1 | col. 17:35-36 |
| (a) a clinician computer for being located generally in the proximity of the patient; | The Infringing System includes a computer, such as the tablet in the Transportable Exam Station, for use by a clinician that is brought to the patient's location. A product sheet for the TES illustrates this portable computer. | Ex. B, p. 2 | col. 17:37-39 |
| (b) at least one internet-capable medical care device including one or more of a heart monitoring equipment, dialysis machinery, blood pressure monitoring equipment, respiratory equipment and custom devices...for transmitting representative reports via the internet; | The Infringing System includes a workstation (the ClinicalAccess Station) connected to the internet via Ethernet, WiFi, or 4G that is "compatible with all GlobalMed approved medical devices." | Ex. B, p. 3 | col. 17:40-48 |
| (c) at least one on-site electronic medical care device...including at least one of an electrocardiograph machine, pulse oximeter, laboratory analyzer, and x-ray machine; | The Infringing System includes or is compatible with an electrocardiograph (ECG) machine that sends patient information to the clinician computer during a patient visit. | Ex. B, p. 6 | col. 17:49-54 |
| (d) a wireless interface in the clinician computer for transmitting wirelessly the on-site patient information from the at least one on-site device to the clinician computer; and | The clinician computer (Getac F110 tablet in the TES) includes wireless interfaces such as WiFi and 3G/4G for transmitting patient information. | Ex. B, p. 7 | col. 17:55-59 |
| (e) the clinician computer for assembling outputs from the on-site medical core devices and reports to provide a record of the at-home patient visit. | The Infringing System includes eNcounter software for "assembling outputs" and "preparing reports from the patient information" to create a record of the visit. A diagram shows the software's workflow, including "Post Appointment Tasks." | Ex. B, p. 8 | col. 17:60-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 15(e) requires the system to provide a record of an "at-home patient visit." The complaint alleges the accused system is used in diverse settings like schools and for military deployments. (Compl. Ex. B, pp. 1, 5). This raises the question of whether the term "at-home patient visit," as used in the patent, can be construed to cover these institutional or non-residential applications.
- Technical Questions: Claim 15(c) requires the system to include "at least one of" a specific list of devices (ECG, pulse oximeter, lab analyzer, x-ray machine). The complaint alleges the accused Transportable Exam Station is "compatible" with such devices. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 2). A key evidentiary question may be whether the defendant sells a system that necessarily includes one of the claimed device types, or if infringement only occurs when a third party or customer combines the base system with a separately acquired peripheral.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at-home patient visit"
Context and Importance: This term appears in elements (c) and (e) of the asserted claim and may be central to the scope of infringement. The Defendant’s products are marketed for a wide range of applications, including military and school-based telemedicine, which may not fit a narrow definition of "at-home." Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused uses fall within the claim’s scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the patient's "home" is not limited to living quarters and can refer to a "workplace, relative's home..., restaurant, mall, sporting event, or any other place where the patient desires to receive medical attention." (’868 Patent, col. 4:55-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title, abstract, and background repeatedly use the phrases "in-home patient visits" and "house calls," and focus on the problems of "homebound patients," which could suggest the invention's context is primarily non-institutional and residential. (’868 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 1:62-63).
The Term: "clinician computer"
Context and Importance: This term is a core component of the claimed system, recited in elements (a), (d), and (e). Its construction will determine what type of computing device satisfies the claim. The parties may dispute whether a general-purpose tablet or computer meets this limitation or if more specific programming or functionality is required.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the clinician computer can be implemented with a general-purpose "digital data processing apparatus" containing a processor and storage, as shown in Figure 2. (’868 Patent, col. 8:36-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the mobile care entity providing each clinician with a "preprogrammed portable computer," and the specification details specific functions like synchronizing with a central medical record center, which could support an argument that the term implies a computer specially configured for the claimed tasks. (’868 Patent, col. 2:54-56; col. 10:25-44).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "at-home patient visit," which is described in the patent specification as potentially occurring in a workplace or mall, be construed broadly enough to read on the institutional and remote field deployments (e.g., military, school health programs) for which the accused system is marketed?
A key question of infringement liability will likely be whether the Defendant is liable for direct infringement of the full system claim. Does the accused system as sold by the Defendant necessarily contain all recited elements, specifically an "on-site electronic medical care device" from the list in claim 15(c), or does infringement only arise when a customer combines the Defendant's base platform with a separately sourced medical peripheral?