DatRec LLC v. Prognocis Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DatRec, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: PrognoCIS, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hankin Patent Law, APC; Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
• Case Identification: 5:21-cv-01595, N.D. Cal., 03/05/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being incorporated in California and having committed alleged acts of infringement, conducted substantial business, and derived revenue within the Northern District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Electronic Health Records system infringes a patent related to methods for verifying user identity and managing secure communication over a public network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns authenticating the identity of users in online networks by cross-referencing information provided by multiple, related parties to establish a level of reliability before permitting communication.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent-in-suit and its underlying technology since at least the patent's date of issuance. No prior litigation or other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309 - "Methods and Systems for Secure Communication Over a Public Network," issued February 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for greater security and confidence in online communications, which are often susceptible to "non-secure connections and to communications from unreliable or falsely-identified senders" (’309 Patent, col. 1:22-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to verify a user's identity by creating a database of user-provided information (’309 Patent, col. 2:53-62). The core concept involves collecting identity data about a specific individual from multiple "related individuals" (e.g., family members, colleagues) and comparing this data to determine a "level of reliability" or "confidence" in the subject's identity (’309 Patent, col. 2:35-40; col. 4:3-6). Based on this verification, the system then allows users to define "one or more levels of permitted communications" with others in the network, effectively creating a trusted communication environment (’309 Patent, Abstract). The process of comparing data from multiple sources to establish reliability is illustrated in a flowchart (e.g., ’309 Patent, Fig. 3A).
• Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to improve trust in electronic interactions by creating a system that can programmatically authenticate user identities based on crowdsourced, cross-referenced data rather than relying on unverified claims (’309 Patent, col. 2:63-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is a method claim, and independent claim 9 is a system claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) Essential Elements:
  • Providing a database with verified data relating to an individual's identity, where the database is constructed by:
    • Permitting a plurality of related individuals to enter data about the subject individual, where the data includes personal identifiers and relationship information "indicative of a family tree."
    • Generating an "individual-associated data set" (IDS) from the entered data.
    • Verifying the IDS by "determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals."
  • Compiling the individual data sets to construct the database.
  • Defining one or more levels of permitted communication between individuals in the database and the verified individual based on the verification.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s "Electronic Health Records" (EHR) system, also referred to as the PrognoCIS system, accessible via www.PrognoCIS.com (Compl. ¶8, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as an "integrated EHR solution for ambulatory care" (Compl. ¶9, p. 4). Its functions are alleged to include enabling communication between users over a network, such as "seamless communication between your practice and labs, radiology, pharmacies, and referring doctors" (Compl. ¶9, p. 5). A screenshot in the complaint describes the system as an "Award-Winning EMR, PM, & Billing Solution" for everything from "Allergy to Urology" (Compl. ¶9, p. 4). The system also allegedly provides for "Credentialing" to "enroll your practice with third-party payers" (Compl. ¶9, p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’309 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "a plurality of individuals related to the said individual." The patent specification describes these relations in both familial and business contexts, with a strong emphasis on "family tree" structures (’309 Patent, col. 5:40-54, col. 19:20-21). The complaint’s theory appears to equate professional entities like "labs, radiology, pharmacies, and referring doctors" with the "related individuals" required by the claim (Compl. ¶9, p. 5). The court will need to determine if the claim term, in light of the specification, can be construed so broadly.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the "Credentialing" feature meets the claim limitation of "determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data... entered by different individuals" (Compl. ¶9, p. 5). A key technical question is whether the accused "Credentialing" function—which typically involves verifying credentials against an authoritative source (e.g., a medical board or insurer)—is the same as the patent's described method of comparing data from multiple, potentially non-authoritative users to calculate a "reliability score" (’309 Patent, col. 4:3-6; Fig. 3A).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a plurality of related individuals" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. Plaintiff's theory requires this term to encompass professional entities in a healthcare network. Defendant may argue for a narrower construction limited to the types of relationships heavily emphasized in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement claim depends on whether professional organizations like labs and pharmacies can be considered "related individuals" in the sense contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions "business colleagues or associates" as one possible type of related individual, which may support an interpretation that extends beyond purely familial ties (’309 Patent, col. 5:50-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same claim explicitly states the relationship data is "indicative of a family tree" (’309 Patent, col. 19:20-21). Furthermore, the specification repeatedly uses familial examples and discusses concepts like "first degree family members (parents, brothers and sisters, spouse, children)" and "grandparents, cousins, in-laws" at length, suggesting a primary focus on personal and familial relationships (’309 Patent, col. 5:44-48).

The Term: "determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core verification mechanism. The infringement allegation hinges on equating the accused "Credentialing" service with this claimed function. The construction will determine whether a standard credential check infringes, or if a more specific comparative analysis is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any process that results in a verified status implicitly determines a "level of reliability" (i.e., a binary high/low level).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details a specific process where data from different users is compared, a "match/mismatch" is determined, and a score may be calculated based on "closeness of match" (’309 Patent, col. 15:50-58). Figure 3A illustrates a multi-step comparison and reliability-ascription process. This suggests a more complex, comparative analysis than a simple check against a single authoritative source, which is how "credentialing" typically works.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it states that PrognoCIS "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use the infringing services (Compl. ¶12). For contributory infringement, it makes similar allegations (Compl. ¶13). Both allegations are supported by the claim that PrognoCIS has known of the ’309 patent since its issuance date.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is and has been willful, based on its alleged knowledge of the ’309 patent "from at least the date of issuance of the patent" (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff seeks a declaration of willfulness and treble damages in its prayer for relief (Compl. p. 8, ¶e).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of key claim terms as they relate to the functionality of the accused EHR system. The central questions are:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "related individuals", which is described in the patent with strong ties to familial and social webs ("family tree"), be construed to cover the arms-length commercial and professional entities ("labs, radiology, pharmacies, and... payers") that comprise the accused healthcare network?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused system’s "Credentialing" feature perform the specific method of "determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data" from multiple sources, as claimed in the patent, or does it perform a fundamentally different technical process of verification against a single, authoritative source?