DCT
5:20-cv-08096
OptraHealth Inc v. BotsCrew Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: OptraHealth, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: BotsCrew, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Zhen Law Firm
- Case Identification: 5:20-cv-08096, N.D. Cal., 04/19/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in the district and the defendant has an established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Genetic Testing Chatbot infringes a patent related to a machine-assisted method for retrieving and interpreting information from healthcare reports.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using conversational artificial intelligence and knowledge graphs to enable consumers to query and understand complex medical data, such as genetic test results, via a personal device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in 2019, Plaintiff disclosed its pending patent application to a third-party, Natera, Inc., during discussions to develop a chatbot. It further alleges that Defendant BotsCrew subsequently developed the accused product for Natera based on information Natera provided. Plaintiff states it sent a notice letter regarding the asserted patent to Defendant on October 26, 2020.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-10-24 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,754,882 |
| 2019 | Plaintiff allegedly discussed its pending application with Natera |
| 2020 | Plaintiff allegedly discovered Defendant's product for Natera |
| 2020-08-25 | U.S. Patent No. 10,754,882 Issued |
| 2020-10-26 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2021-04-19 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,754,882 - Method of Retrieving Information from a Health Report Through a Machine Assisted Interrogation Process, Issued August 25, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies that health reports contain complex terms unfamiliar to consumers, requiring significant time and effort to understand (ʼ882 Patent, col. 1:20-25). This lack of understanding and communication with healthcare professionals can lead to "unfavorable circumstances" and put a consumer's health at "serious risk" (ʼ882 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a machine-assisted "interrogation process" where a user can submit queries about a specific health report via a personal device (ʼ882 Patent, col. 2:23-29). The system then compiles a "knowledge corpus" for that specific report by creating a "query-related knowledge graph" and a "report-related knowledge graph," and uses this structure to extract and provide relevant answers back to the user's device (ʼ882 Patent, col. 2:54-61).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to empower consumers to directly and privately interrogate their health data without the delay or necessity of a healthcare professional acting as an intermediary (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶27).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential steps:
- Providing a personal assistance device coupled with a reporting system.
- The reporting system comprises health reports and a query-interrogation system.
- Receiving a query related to a specific health report from the personal device.
- Forwarding the query to the reporting system.
- Selecting the specific health report via the query-interrogation system.
- Compiling a "knowledge corpus" for the report using a "knowledge-graphing system," where the corpus includes a "query-related knowledge graph" and a "report-related knowledge graph."
- Extracting a list of query-related information by "comparing and associating" the query-related graph with the report-related graph.
- Forwarding the list of information back to the personal device.
- Converting the list into an output file.
- Outputting the file through the personal device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Genetic Testing Chatbot" and related services, particularly a version allegedly developed for Natera, Inc. (Compl. ¶21, ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a personal assistance device that enables a customer to "chat with the bot to discuss specific genetic test results" (Compl. ¶22). A screenshot provided in the complaint depicts the accused chatbot interface presenting a user with negative genetic test results and a selectable list of frequently asked questions (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges the accused product platform includes the ability to "train... and analyze chatbot results on the go" (Compl. ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'882 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) providing a personal assistance device, wherein the personal assistance device is communicably coupled with a reporting system | Defendant provides a personal assistance device that includes the reporting system of the genetic testing chatbot (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 2:40-44 |
| (B) providing a reporting system, wherein the reporting system comprises a plurality of health reports and a query-interrogation system | Defendant provides the chatbot reporting system which includes health reports, such as genetic tests, and a query-interrogation system that receives input queries and provides output (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 2:30-34 |
| (C) receiving a health report-related query through the personal assistance device, wherein the health report-related query corresponds to a specific health report from the plurality of health reports | The chatbot receives queries for "specific genetic test results," which correspond to a specific health report from a set of health reports (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 2:45-48 |
| (D) forwarding the health report-related query to the reporting system through the personal assistance device | The accused product forwards queries from the personal assistance device to the chatbot (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 2:50-53 |
| (E) selecting the specific health report from the plurality of health reports through the query-interrogation system | The accused product selects the specific health report by "providing for discussions of specific genetic test results" (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 6:37-41 |
| (F) compiling a corresponding knowledge corpus for the specific health report through a knowledge-graphing system, wherein the corresponding knowledge corpus includes a query-related... and a report-related knowledge graph | The accused product compiles a knowledge corpus by "gathering the collection of records associated with the specific genetic tests" and allegedly uses a knowledge-graphing system based on its stated ability to "train" the platform (Compl. ¶28, ¶11, ¶30). | ¶11, ¶28, ¶30 | col. 2:54-61 |
| (G) extracting a list of query-related information from the corresponding knowledge corpus... by comparing and associating the query-related knowledge graph with the report-related knowledge graph... | The accused product extracts a list of query-related information "to be able to enable the chatbot to function to provide responses for the queries" (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 4:46-54 |
| (H) forwarding the list of query-related information from the reporting system to the personal assistance device | The accused product forwards the list of query-related information to the personal assistance device to output the results (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶11 | col. 4:55-59 |
| (I) converting the list of query-related information to an output content file through the query-interrogation system | The accused product converts the list of query-related information to an output content file on the personal assistance device (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). | ¶11, ¶28 | col. 4:60-65 |
| (J) outputting the output content file through the personal assistance device | The accused product outputs the content file through the personal assistance device (Compl. ¶28, ¶12). | ¶12, ¶28 | col. 4:60-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Defendant's chatbot, which the complaint alleges can be "train[ed]" (Compl. ¶30), constitutes the claimed "knowledge-graphing system." The resolution may depend on whether any AI-driven chatbot meets the definition, or if the term requires the specific two-part graph structure (query-related and report-related) recited in claim 1.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused product extracts information "to be able to enable the chatbot to function to provide responses" (Compl. ¶11). This describes a functional outcome. A potential point of contention is what technical evidence demonstrates that the accused system performs the specific claimed step of "comparing and associating the query-related knowledge graph with the report-related knowledge graph" to achieve this outcome.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "knowledge-graphing system"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to define the core technical engine of the claimed invention. The infringement case may turn on whether the accused chatbot's underlying technology can be properly characterized as a "knowledge-graphing system" as contemplated by the patent, rather than a more generic AI or rules-based system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the system as being "generated using artificial intelligence modules, natural language understanding modules, and machine learning modules" (ʼ882 Patent, Abstract). This language could be used to argue that any system incorporating these general AI components falls within the scope of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1(F) requires that the system compiles a corpus that "includes a query-related knowledge graph and a report-related knowledge graph" (ʼ882 Patent, col. 6:50-55). This could support a narrower construction where the term is limited to systems that create and utilize these two specific, distinct graph structures.
The Term: "comparing and associating the query-related knowledge graph with the report-related knowledge graph"
- Context and Importance: This phrase describes the key functional step (G) that generates the answer to a user's query. The nature of this "comparing and associating" step will be critical to determining infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges this step is met simply because the chatbot is able "to function to provide responses" (Compl. ¶11), suggesting any process that links a query to a relevant answer would suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that this comparison "determines a plurality of intersection points that is then used to extract the list of query-related information" (ʼ882 Patent, col. 4:52-54). This language may support an argument that the claim requires a specific technical process of finding intersections between two defined graph data structures, not just a general information lookup.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant provides the accused product to partners and customers, such as Natera, Inc., along with instructions, materials, and services (Compl. ¶35-36). Knowledge and intent are alleged to stem from discussions between Plaintiff and Natera in 2019 and a formal notice letter sent from Plaintiff to Defendant in October 2020 (Compl. ¶8, ¶29, ¶37).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent application via Natera and post-issuance knowledge via the October 2020 notice letter (Compl. ¶29, ¶37). The complaint specifically alleges Defendant used a "blueprint" derived from Plaintiff's patent application to develop its product (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Does the accused chatbot's use of "train[ing]" and other AI techniques, as alleged in the complaint, embody the specific architecture of the claimed "knowledge-graphing system", which requires generating and then "comparing and associating" two distinct data structures—a "query-related knowledge graph" and a "report-related knowledge graph"?
- A key evidentiary question will concern knowledge and causation: What evidence supports the allegation that Defendant developed its chatbot using a "blueprint" derived from Plaintiff's patent application via Natera? The answer to this question will be central to the allegations of indirect and willful infringement.
- The case may also raise a definitional question under claim 1(E): What actions constitute "selecting the specific health report"? The complaint alleges this is met by "providing for discussions of specific genetic test results," raising the question of whether initiating a conversation is equivalent to the claimed "selecting" step.