DCT
3:24-cv-01291
Linden v. ResMed Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Craig L. Linden (California)
- Defendant: ResMed Inc. (Delaware), ResMed Corp. (Minnesota), ResMed Holdings Pty Limited (Australia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: HATCH LAW PC
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01291, S.D. Cal., 07/24/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in the Southern District of California and have committed acts of infringement in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s connected pulmonary treatment devices and associated software infringe a patent related to methods for remote patient treatment involving real-time communication and physical interaction.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of telemedicine, specifically systems that enable healthcare providers to remotely monitor, diagnose, and treat patients by combining audio-visual conferencing with physical device feedback.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants have been aware of the patent-in-suit since at least January 19, 2021, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-31 | '150 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-05-02 | '150 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-01-19 | Alleged date of pre-suit knowledge |
| 2024-07-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,639,150 - “Powered Physical Displays on Mobile Devices”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,639,150, “Powered Physical Displays on Mobile Devices,” issued May 2, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes limitations in prior art remote interaction technologies, such as their reliance on pre-recorded information, inconvenient or bulky hardware (e.g., bodysuits), and communication delays that prevent realistic, live interactions (’150 Patent, col. 5:46-6:67). The goal was to move beyond simple data transfer or pre-programmed responses to enable more spontaneous and complete human-to-human interaction through remote devices (’150 Patent, col. 5:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for remote patient treatment using a system of two devices. A "first device" at the patient's location is equipped with an input transducer (to measure patient parameters) and a "physical output display." A "second device" is used by a treatment provider at a remote location. The method involves establishing an audio-video conference, measuring a patient's vital sign, transmitting that data to the provider, forming a diagnosis, and then sending a signal back to the patient's device to "cause a physical interaction between the physical output display and the patient" as part of a treatment (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:46-17:20). Figure 12 depicts a doctor remotely interacting with a patient, illustrating the intended medical application (’150 Patent, Fig. 12).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to enhance telemedicine by integrating live audio-visual communication with real-time physical feedback, creating what the patent calls a "more complete and physically realistic human interaction" (’150 Patent, col. 5:31-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- providing a first internet-capable mobile electronic device at a patient location, comprising a physical output display and an input transducer;
- providing a second, distinct device at a remote location;
- establishing an audio-video and data communication connection between the locations;
- conducting an audio-video conference where a treatment provider elicits patient information;
- transmitting the patient information from the first device to the second device;
- using the input transducer to measure a patient parameter that includes at least one vital sign;
- transmitting a first signal indicative of the patient parameter to the second device;
- forming a diagnosis based at least partly on the patient parameter;
- using the first signal and other information at the remote location to determine a treatment and generate a second signal;
- sending the second signal from the second device to the first device to administer the treatment; and
- using the second signal to cause a physical interaction between the physical output display and the patient.
- The complaint states it asserts dependent Claims 2 and 9 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Exemplary Accused Products" include the Airsense 10 series, Airsense 11 series, AirCurve 10 series, AirCurve 11, AirView software, and myAir software (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "connected diagnostic and pulmonary treatment devices" (Compl. ¶1). They are alleged to be "remotely controlled physically and/or electronically interactive communication enabled end user devices" (Compl. ¶14). The system allows patients to use devices (e.g., Airsense) that are monitored remotely by healthcare providers using associated software (e.g., AirView). The complaint alleges that the stimulus delivered to the patient as part of the treatment is "air pressure" (Compl. ¶16).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶22). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
'150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a first device at a patient location, the first device being an internet and networking capable multi-media mobile electronic device comprising at least one each of a physical output display and an input transducer | The ResMed Airsense and AirCurve devices are provided to patients. These devices are alleged to be internet-capable and include sensors (input transducer) and a mechanism for delivering air pressure (physical output display). | ¶1, ¶16 | col. 16:48-54 |
| establishing an audio-video and data communication connection between the patient location and the remote location | The ResMed system, including AirView and myAir software, is alleged to establish communication between the patient's device and a remote treatment provider's system. | ¶16 | col. 16:57-60 |
| conducting an audio-video conference between the patient at the patient location and a treatment provider at the remote location | The complaint alleges an audio-video conference is conducted between the patient and provider, a step performed by those parties using the ResMed system. | ¶16 | col. 16:61-64 |
| using the input transducer to measure a patient parameter at the patient location and produce a first signal indicative of the patient parameter, wherein the patient parameter includes at least one vital sign | The sensors in the ResMed device are alleged to measure a patient's vital signs, such as respiratory parameters. | ¶16 | col. 17:1-5 |
| forming a diagnosis at least partially based on the patient parameter | A treatment provider is alleged to form a diagnosis using data from the ResMed device. | ¶16 | col. 17:6-8 |
| using the first signal at the remote location... to determine a treatment and generating a second signal associated with said treatment | A treatment provider allegedly uses the vital sign data to determine a treatment (e.g., a specific air pressure setting) and generates a corresponding signal within the ResMed system. | ¶16 | col. 17:9-13 |
| sending said second signal from said second device to said first device to administer a treatment | The ResMed system allegedly sends the treatment signal from the provider's software (e.g., AirView) to the patient's device (e.g., Airsense). | ¶16 | col. 17:14-15 |
| using said second signal to cause a physical interaction between the physical output display and the patient. | The signal allegedly causes the ResMed device to deliver a specific air pressure to the patient, which the complaint frames as the claimed "physical interaction." | ¶16 | col. 17:16-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether a therapeutic device that delivers air pressure (a CPAP machine) can be considered a "physical output display" as that term is used in the patent. Similarly, it raises the question of whether the delivery of therapeutic air pressure constitutes the "physical interaction" contemplated by the claims, which the patent specification also illustrates with examples like a hugging teddy bear (’150 Patent, Fig. 1) or a squeezing handset (’150 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts a theory of divided infringement, where some method steps are performed by the Defendants, while others are performed by "a patient's and a treatment provider" (Compl. ¶18). A key question will be what evidence exists to show that Defendants "direct or control" the actions of these third parties to the degree required by law to be liable for direct infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "physical output display"
- Context and Importance: This term is central because the accused functionality is the delivery of air pressure from a CPAP machine. Whether such a mechanism qualifies as a "display" will be a critical issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants will likely argue their product is a medical therapeutic device, not a "display," while Plaintiff will argue for a broader definition covering any physical output.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to visual screens, stating "Powered physical display movements and energy displays can enable the local or remote delivery of various energy forms such as electric, mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, etc. or combinations thereof" (’150 Patent, col. 4:3-6). This directly supports an interpretation that includes pneumatic outputs.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title refers to "Displays on Mobile Devices," and many figures depict devices with more traditional haptic or kinetic outputs, such as the movable arms of a teddy bear (Fig. 1, Fig. 8), an expanding pillow (Fig. 5), or a hand-squeezing device (Fig. 6). Defendants may argue these embodiments limit the term to interactive, communicative outputs rather than therapeutic ones.
The Term: "physical interaction"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the final step of the claimed method. Its interpretation is tied to the meaning of "physical output display." The dispute will center on whether receiving a stream of therapeutic air pressure constitutes an "interaction" in the context of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent broadly describes the goal of enabling "living beings to interact with machines" and delivering "physical motion and actions similar to human-to-human gestures" (’150 Patent, col. 3:36-38, 3:64-4:1). Plaintiff may argue that delivering a physical force like air pressure falls within this broad description. The specification also mentions "therapy" and "treatments" as applications (’150 Patent, col. 4:65-6:3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The examples in the specification, such as "hugging, hand holding, hand squeezes" (’150 Patent, col. 4:1-2), suggest the "interaction" is communicative and reciprocal in nature. Defendants may argue that the one-way delivery of therapeutic air pressure is fundamentally different from the bi-directional, gesture-based interactions emphasized in the patent's detailed description.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by actively and willfully encouraging patients and treatment providers to perform the claimed method steps (Compl. ¶20). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants sell a material component of the patented method that is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶21). These allegations appear to be an alternative to the primary theory of direct infringement under a "directs or controls" standard (Compl. ¶18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful because they have been "aware of the '150 Patent since at least January 19, 2021" (Compl. ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "physical output display", which the patent illustrates with haptic and kinetic examples like hugging teddy bears, be construed to cover a CPAP machine that delivers therapeutic air pressure? This question extends to whether receiving that air pressure constitutes a "physical interaction" as contemplated by the claims.
- A key legal and evidentiary question will be one of divided infringement: can the Plaintiff prove that ResMed directs or controls the actions of third-party patients and healthcare providers to such a degree that ResMed can be held liable for performing the entire multi-step method claim itself, as required under the standard set in Akamai?
- A central question of proof will be whether the accused system actually facilitates the "audio-video conference" required by the claim, or if it is primarily a data monitoring and device management platform, with any live patient-provider communication occurring through separate, non-integrated channels.