DCT

1:19-cv-00827

Heart Imaging Tech LLC v. Arterys Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00827, D. Del., 05/03/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based medical imaging products infringe three patents related to systems and methods for converting proprietary medical images into a format viewable on a standard internet browser.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of making high-fidelity medical images from various sources (e.g., MRI, CT) accessible for diagnostic review on standard computers, aiming to replace the need for expensive, specialized workstations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents have been licensed by several major medical imaging companies, including Merge Healthcare (IBM), Viztek (Konica Minolta), and Vital Images (Canon). Plaintiff also alleges it sent a letter notifying Defendant of the asserted patents in August 2018, which was followed by unsuccessful licensing negotiations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-12-20 Priority Date for '698, '656, and '381 Patents
2005-08-23 '698 Patent Issued
2008-11-25 '656 Patent Issued
2012-04-24 '381 Patent Issued
2014-01-14 Merge Healthcare licenses Asserted Patents
2014-09-30 Viztek LLC licenses Asserted Patents
2015-09-08 Vital Images, Inc. licenses Asserted Patents
2016-09-08 Arterys submits 510(k) for Arterys 2.0 Software
2016-11-18 Arterys submits 510(k) for Arterys Cardio DL
2017-05-26 Arterys submits 510(k) for Arterys Viewer
2018-07-26 Arterys submits 510(k) for Arterys MICA
2018-08-08 Heart IT sends notice letter to Arterys
2019-05-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,934,698 - "Medical Image Management System," Issued Aug. 23, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty physicians face in viewing and comparing medical images, which are often stored in disparate, proprietary digital formats requiring specialized and expensive workstations for each modality (e.g., MRI, ultrasound) (’698 Patent, col. 1:11-34). Existing internet viewing methods were described as slow, causing a loss of diagnostic information, or requiring cumbersome client-side software like Java applets (’698 Patent, col. 2:35-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automates the conversion of various medical image formats into a single, browser-compatible format. A series of software engines work in concert: a "transfer engine" pulls the original image data, a "converter engine" (comprising "decoder", "physiologic knowledge", and "encoder" sub-engines) processes and optimizes the image for web viewing without losing diagnostic quality, and a "post engine" saves the result in a web-accessible database (’698 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). This process is designed to occur "off-line" before a user requests the image, enabling fast, "zero client" access from any standard browser (’698 Patent, col. 4:16-24).
  • Technical Importance: This system architecture aimed to decouple medical image review from proprietary hardware, effectively turning any computer with a web browser into a viable diagnostic workstation and facilitating easier image sharing and collaboration (’698 Patent, col. 4:7-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are a system comprising:
    • A "transfer engine" for receiving medical image data.
    • A "converter engine" to create a browser-compatible format, itself comprising:
      • A "decoder engine" to extract pixel data.
      • A "physiologic knowledge engine" to reduce pixel data without losing diagnostic data.
      • An "encoder engine" to convert the pixel data to the browser-compatible format.
    • A "post engine" to post the converted image to a database.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is a common litigation practice.

U.S. Patent No. 7,457,656 - "Medical Image Management System," Issued Nov. 25, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’656 Patent addresses the same core problem as its parent patent: the incompatibility of medical image formats with standard web browsers and the diagnostic compromises required by prior art web-viewing solutions (’656 Patent, col. 1:17-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that focuses on automating image optimization. The key step is "predetermining without user input" at least one display setting (such as brightness or contrast) needed for medical diagnosis. The system then converts the original, incompatible image using this predetermined setting into a browser-compatible format that importantly "retains its original resolution". This pre-application of optimal settings is designed to simplify the user experience and avoid the need for manual adjustments in the browser (’656 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:51-64).
  • Technical Importance: This method further streamlined the process of web-based diagnostics by automating a critical step—setting the correct image parameters—thereby reducing user burden and making the system more efficient for clinical use (’656 Patent, col. 8:3-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are a method comprising:
    • Receiving a digital medical image in a browser-incompatible format.
    • "Predetermining without user input" at least one image display setting to permit medical diagnosis.
    • Converting the image using the predetermined setting.
    • Wherein the converted image is browser-compatible and "retains its original resolution".
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,166,381 - "Medical Image Management System," Issued Apr. 24, 2012 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for managing medical information by simulating a medical workstation in a browser. The method involves receiving browser-incompatible image series at a first computer and providing a pointer (e.g., a hyperlink) to a user on a second computer. In response to the user selecting the pointer, the system provides a web page containing a grid of navigational images (e.g., thumbnails) that, when selected, display the full, diagnostically useful medical images, all without requiring special software on the user's computer (’381 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:20-62).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products provide a "Worklist" of studies that a user can select with a browser cursor. In response, the products allegedly provide a web page with a rectangular grid of navigational thumbnail images, which when selected, display the full diagnostic images within the user's browser (Compl. ¶¶57-59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Arterys 2.0 Software, Arterys Cardio DL, Arterys Viewer, and Arterys MICA (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶25).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint describes the Accused Products as cloud-based artificial intelligence platforms that receive medical image data (e.g., DICOM 3.0 format from MRI scanners) and convert it into a browser-compatible format (Compl. ¶¶23, 32). This allows physicians to view and analyze the images using a standard web browser, such as Google Chrome, without needing to install any specialized software on their local computer, a feature described as "zero download" or "zero client" (Compl. ¶¶16-17, 28).
    • The products are presented as FDA-cleared medical devices used for "clinical decision-making" (Compl. ¶¶16-19). The complaint alleges they are actively marketed at medical industry trade shows through "hands-on" workshops (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'698 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a medical Image management system comprising: The Accused Products are medical image management systems. ¶32 col. 6:13-14
a transfer engine for receiving medical image data from an image data source; The Accused Products receive medical image data, such as DICOM 3.0 images from MRI scanners. ¶32 col. 6:52-54
a converter engine for converting medical image data to a browser compatible image format... wherein the converter engine comprises: The Accused Products convert medical image data from DICOM format to a browser compatible format. ¶32 col. 6:41-43
a decoder engine for extracting image pixel data from image data; Arterys Software v2.0 extracts pixel data from the DICOM image input. ¶33 col. 7:3-6
a physiologic knowledge engine for reducing the image pixel data without loss of diagnostic data... Arterys Software v2.0 automatically reduces image pixel data and adjusts variables like Window/Level and frame rate "in accordance with physiologic principles." ¶33 col. 7:23-31
an encoder engine for converting image pixel data to a browser compatible format... whereby image data is converted to the browser compatible format without loss of diagnostic data; Arterys Software v2.0 converts the image to a browser compatible format "without loss of diagnostic data." ¶33 col. 8:21-29
and a post engine for posting the browser compatible image to a database connected to receive converted image data. Arterys Software v2.0 provides a longitudinal view of patient records "that is stored on a database of converted images." ¶34 col. 8:31-41
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the accused cloud-based service platform constitute a "system" as claimed, particularly where different functions may be performed by distributed server resources rather than co-located "engines"?
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused software adjusts variables "in accordance with physiologic principles," mapping this to the "physiologic knowledge engine". A point of contention may be whether applying standard adjustments like "Window/Level" meets the patent's more specific description of using a priori knowledge of anatomy to, for example, crop an image to a specific organ of interest (’698 Patent, col. 8:53-65).

'656 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of managing medical information comprising: receiving at least one digital medical image in a format that is incompatible with viewing in an Internet web browser; The Accused Products receive medical image data in DICOM format from MRI machines, which is incompatible with a web browser. ¶44 col. 9:52-54
predetermining without user input at least one image display setting... to permit medical diagnosis... Arterys Software v2.0 "predetermines the Window/Level of digital medical images to permit medical diagnosis by the user." ¶45 col. 8:3-15
converting the at least one digital medical image using the predetermined at least one image display setting, The Accused Products convert the DICOM images using the predetermined image settings. ¶46 col. 9:60-61
wherein the converted at least one digital medical image is compatible with viewing in an Internet web browser and retains its original resolution. The Accused Products convert DICOM images to a browser compatible format, and the images "retain their original resolution." ¶46 col. 9:62-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "predetermining without user input" will be critical. A question for the court will be whether applying a default "Window/Level" setting, which a user may subsequently be able to change, satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires a more definitive, automated optimization.
    • Technical Questions: The meaning of "retains its original resolution" may be a central dispute. A defendant could argue that any conversion between formats (e.g., from DICOM to a web format) inherently alters the image data, raising the question of whether "retains" means diagnostically lossless, identical pixel dimensions, or something else.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "physiologic knowledge engine" ('698 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines a key component that allegedly distinguishes the invention from a simple file converter. The infringement case for the '698 patent hinges on whether the accused products contain a component that performs the functions of this "engine."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the engine's function as using "a priori knowledge of physiology, anatomy, the diagnostic question, or any combination of the three" to adjust images and reduce file size (’698 Patent, col. 7:31-35). This could be argued to encompass any system that uses context-aware rules to optimize images.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples, such as defining a search region for the heart, finding the brightest pixel within that region, and cropping the image to show only the organ of interest (’698 Patent, col. 8:53-65). This could support an argument that the term is limited to these specific, anatomy-driven optimization techniques.

  • Term: "retains its original resolution" ('656 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is crucial for distinguishing the claimed method from prior art compression techniques that sacrificed image quality for smaller file sizes. Infringement will depend on whether the accused conversion process meets this requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background criticizes prior art for "loss of diagnostic information" and transfer times being too long due to "the large size of medical images" (’656 Patent, col. 2:40-44). This suggests "retains its original resolution" could be interpreted functionally to mean retaining all diagnostically relevant information and the original pixel count (e.g., 512x512), even if the underlying data format changes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a literal interpretation, meaning that the pixel data values in the converted image must correspond directly to the original, which may be technically challenging or impossible during format conversion. The absence of a specific definition in the patent leaves the precise technical meaning open to dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Arterys conducted "hands-on" workshops demonstrating the infringing features and encouraging attendees to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶35, 47, 62). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Accused Products are specialized systems with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶36, 48, 63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents. It specifically pleads that Arterys was put on actual notice via a letter from Heart IT dated August 8, 2018, more than eight months before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶37, 49).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the automated "Window/Level" adjustment in the Accused Products perform the specific, knowledge-based optimization of the claimed "physiologic knowledge engine" ('698 Patent), or is it a generic default setting common to imaging software? This question extends to whether this functionality meets the "predetermining without user input" step of the '656 Patent.
  • The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the phrase "retains its original resolution" ('656 Patent) be met when an image is converted from a proprietary format like DICOM to a standard web format like GIF or JPEG? The court's construction of this term will be critical to the infringement analysis.
  • A key question for willfulness and potential damages will be the impact of prior art and industry practice: in light of the patents' extensive licensing history with major industry players, the court will have to assess whether Defendant's continued alleged infringement after receiving notice was objectively reckless, or if its system represents a non-infringing alternative approach that is common in the field.