DCT
1:17-cv-01113
Bareholdtech LLC v. AgaMatrix Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bareholdtech LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Agamatrix, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01113, D. Del., 08/08/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s blood glucose monitoring system infringes a patent related to a device and method for facilitating patient compliance with medical therapy.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of remote patient monitoring, where a patient-side device communicates data to a base station for tracking, evaluation, and notification to improve adherence to medical regimens.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-06-22 | ’342 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-05-17 | ’342 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-08-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,944,342 - "Prescription Compliance Device and Method of Using Device" (Issued May 17, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of patient non-compliance with prescribed medication schedules, noting that existing reminder devices were often "complex and costly, inconvenient to program, and have not been flexible enough" (’342 Patent, col. 1:41-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for monitoring and encouraging compliance. It comprises a patient-side device that measures or records compliance events (e.g., taking a pill) and wirelessly communicates that data to a separate "base station" (’342 Patent, Abstract). This base station is described as having the capability to store the compliance data, evaluate it against a prescribed regimen, and send notifications based on that evaluation, potentially to a third party such as a physician or caregiver (’342 Patent, col. 1:30-33, col. 2:46-54).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a shift from standalone, local reminder alarms to a networked system that enables remote data collection and supervision of patient adherence, a key concept in the development of modern digital health platforms.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 3 (a device), and notes that other claims may be infringed as well (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- measuring therapy compliance of a patient using a device connected to a base station via a wireless connection;
- transmitting the therapy compliance measurements to the base station via the wireless connection;
- storing the therapy compliance measurements at the base station;
- evaluating patient compliance at the base station based on the stored therapy compliance measurements;
- identifying instances in the evaluating in which patient compliance meets predetermined compliance requirements; and
- sending a notification, about one or more of the instances, to a party based on patient compliance such that action can be taken by the party.
- Independent Claim 3 (Device):
- a measuring unit configured to measure therapy compliance of a patient; and
- a communication unit configured to connect to a base station which stores the therapy compliance measurements, evaluates patient compliance, identifies instances where compliance meets requirements, sends a notification to a party, and is configured to transmit the measurements to the base station.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Agamatrix Jazz Wireless 2" system, which includes a blood glucose meter and the corresponding "AgaMatrix Diabetes Manager" mobile application ("the app") (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The system consists of a physical meter that measures a user's blood glucose level and wirelessly transmits that data, via Bluetooth, to the app running on a user's smartphone (Compl. p. 4). The complaint includes a visual from Defendant's marketing materials depicting this wireless data transfer. This visual shows the app receiving a glucose reading from the meter and then storing, displaying, and analyzing the data, including calculating averages and flagging hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic events (Compl. p. 4). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’342 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| measuring therapy compliance of a patient using a device connected to a base station via a wireless connection | The Jazz Wireless 2 meter measures a user's blood glucose level as a metric of compliance with their diabetes therapy regimen. | ¶12 | col. 29:63-65 |
| transmitting the therapy compliance measurements to the base station via the wireless connection | The meter wirelessly transmits the glucose reading to the AgaMatrix Diabetes Manager app, which is alleged to be the base station. | ¶12, p. 4 | col. 29:66-67 |
| storing the therapy compliance measurements at the base station | The app stores historical glucose readings, as shown in the "Last 30 days" view. | ¶12, p. 4 | col. 30:1 |
| evaluating patient compliance at the base station based on the stored therapy compliance measurements | The app evaluates the stored data by, for example, calculating average glucose levels and tracking the number of readings. | ¶12, p. 4 | col. 30:2-4 |
| identifying instances in the evaluating in which patient compliance meets predetermined compliance requirements | The app identifies and categorizes readings as "Hypo" (low) or "Hyper" (high), which are alleged to be predetermined requirements. | ¶12, p. 4 | col. 30:5-7 |
| sending a notification... to a party based on patient compliance such that action can be taken by the party | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality performs this function. | ¶9 | col. 30:8-11 |
The infringement theory for device Claim 3 mirrors the method allegations above, with the meter constituting the "measuring unit" and its wireless transmitter constituting the "communication unit" (Compl. ¶10).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether a patient’s own smartphone running an app can be construed as a "base station" under the patent. The defense may argue that the patent's disclosure, which references connecting to a "personal computer (PC)," implies a more distinct, stationary, or remote entity than the user's personal mobile device (’342 Patent, col. 9:50-54).
- Technical Questions: The case may turn on what constitutes "therapy compliance measurements." The patent's specification focuses heavily on compliance with medication dosage schedules (i.e., taking a pill at a specific time). A key question will be whether a physiological measurement, such as a blood glucose level, falls within the scope of this term, or if the term is limited to the act of taking a medication.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused system performs the "sending a notification... to a party" step. A significant point of contention may be whether displaying an alert (e.g., "Hypo") on the user's own app screen satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires transmitting a notification to a separate party, such as a caregiver or physician, as contemplated in the patent's background section (’342 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "base station"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "base station" is fundamental to the claimed system architecture. The infringement case hinges on this term being broad enough to read on a user's smartphone running the accused app.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly define or limit the term, leaving open the argument that any device serving as a central point for receiving, storing, and evaluating data from the patient-side device qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where the device communicates with a "personal computer (PC)," and Figure 7 depicts a connection "TO PC" (’342 Patent, col. 9:45-54, Fig. 7). This could support an argument that a "base station" is an entity separate from a handheld device carried by the user.
The Term: "sending a notification... to a party"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the final element of claim 1 depends on the identity of "a party." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no facts showing a notification is sent to anyone other than the user.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plaintiff may argue that the patient is "a party," and therefore displaying an alert on the user's own screen constitutes sending a notification to that party.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the notification to be sent "such that action can be taken by the party." The patent's background discusses the role of an "attendant" or "physician" in ensuring compliance, suggesting the intended "party" is an external caregiver who can intervene (’342 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "advising, instructing, encouraging, contributing, or otherwise inducing others to perform the remaining steps" and "intentionally instructs its customers to infringe" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation is likely premised on Defendant’s marketing and user instructions for the Accused Instrumentality.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent "from at least the date of the filing of this lawsuit" (Compl. ¶16). This is a claim for post-suit willfulness and does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "therapy compliance measurement," which is rooted in the patent's context of medication dosage timing, be construed to cover a physiological state measurement like a blood glucose reading?
- A second critical issue will be one of claim construction and functional proof: does the term "base station" read on a user's own smartphone, and does an alert displayed on that same user's screen satisfy the requirement of "sending a notification... to a party such that action can be taken," or does the claim require communication to a third party?
- The outcome of the case may depend heavily on whether the evidence shows a functional correspondence between the accused product's features—designed for personal glucose management—and the patent's claims, which appear directed toward a system for supervised, remote monitoring of medication adherence.