DCT
1:21-cv-01458
Ai Visualize Inc v. Mach7 Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AI Visualize, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: Nuance Communications Inc. (Delaware) and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cole Schotz P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:21-cv-01458, D. Del., 01/11/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and therefore reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ PowerShare medical imaging platform, which utilizes the eUnity and ResolutionMD viewers, infringes four patents related to server-side systems for remotely viewing and manipulating large medical image datasets over the internet.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of viewing large medical scans (e.g., CT, MRI) over standard internet connections by processing the data on a central server and streaming only the requested image views to a client's web browser, avoiding the need to download the entire dataset.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family based on a conversation at the 2017 Radiological Society of North America conference. It also references statements from the patents' prosecution histories to assert that the claims were allowed by the USPTO over prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-05-28 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2011-01-01 | Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Award mentioned |
| 2013-01-01 | AMD Innovation Summit presentation by inventor mentioned |
| 2014-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,701,167 Issues |
| 2015-07-01 | Alleged date Defendant Nuance began using eUnity viewer |
| 2015-08-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,106,609 Issues |
| 2015-11-29 | 2015 RSNA conference mentioned |
| 2016-09-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,438,667 Issues |
| 2017-11-26 | 2017 RSNA conference; Plaintiff alleges notice was provided |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff's patents allegedly marked on website |
| 2021-02-23 | U.S. Patent No. 10,930,397 Issues |
| 2022-01-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,701,167 - "Method And System For Fast Access To Advanced Visualization Of Medical Scans Using A Dedicated Web Portal"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of interactively viewing large 3D medical image datasets (e.g., CT or MRI scans) over the internet, which is often hindered by low bandwidth and high latency, making it impractical or impossible to download the entire raw dataset to a user's local computer for processing (Compl. ¶ 31-32; ’167 Patent, col. 2:5-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server method where large volume visualization datasets are stored and processed on a centralized server. A remote client device (e.g., a standard computer running a web browser) sends requests for specific views. The server generates the requested image frames from the raw data and transmits only those frames back to the client. The method includes a client-side caching mechanism that checks if a requested frame is already stored locally before requesting it from the server, thereby optimizing bandwidth usage and improving interactivity (’167 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This server-side rendering architecture enables remote physicians to access and manipulate diagnostic-quality medical images on standard hardware over conventional internet connections without prohibitive delays (Compl. ¶ 18, 56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 6, and 9 (Compl. ¶ 90-96).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites the core steps of:
- Providing a central data storage medium, a server, and a client device with local storage linked over the Internet.
- Requesting a series of 3D virtual views at the client device.
- Determining if any requested view frame is stored on the client's local data storage.
- Sending a request to the server only for frames not stored locally.
- Creating the requested frames at the server.
- Transmitting the created frames to the client.
- Displaying the series of views by sequentially showing frames from the server along with frames from local storage.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 6, 7, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶ 90).
U.S. Patent No. 9,106,609 - "Method And System For Fast Access To Advanced Visualization Of Medical Scans Using A Dedicated Web Portal"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’167 Patent, addresses the same problems of delivering interactive 3D medical visualizations over bandwidth-limited networks (Compl. ¶ 23-38).
- The Patented Solution: The ’609 Patent claims a system embodying the client-server architecture, rather than just the method. It explicitly recites architectural components such as "a plurality of servers," a "resource manager device for load balancing," a "security device," and "at least one physically secured site" to house the infrastructure. The claimed web application performs the client-side functions of requesting views, checking a local cache, and displaying the received frames (’609 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-31).
- Technical Importance: By claiming the system architecture, including elements for scalability (load balancing) and security, the patent describes a more robust, enterprise-grade solution for remote medical imaging (Compl. ¶ 57-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 19, and 22 (Compl. ¶ 98).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) recites a system comprising:
- A transmitter for accepting visualization datasets.
- A central data storage medium.
- A plurality of servers for processing the dataset.
- A resource manager for load balancing the servers.
- A security device controlling communications.
- A physically secured site housing the components.
- A web application adapted to perform the client-side logic of requesting, caching, and displaying views, mirroring the method steps of the ’167 Patent.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 4, 6-9, 20, 25, and 26 (Compl. ¶ 98).
U.S. Patent No. 9,438,667
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,438,667, issued September 6, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family, this patent claims a system for remote medical image visualization. The claims are structurally similar to those in the ’609 Patent, reciting a client-server architecture with components for data storage, server-side processing, load balancing, and security, all operated via a web application that manages local caching of image frames (’667 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, and 11 (Compl. ¶ 111).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Nuance PowerShare product, with its eUnity and/or ResolutionMD viewers, embodies the claimed system architecture for server-side rendering and remote viewing (Compl. ¶ 111).
U.S. Patent No. 10,930,397
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,930,397, issued February 23, 2021.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system and method for remote viewing that explicitly requires communication to occur over an "encrypted communication connection." It also claims a system with a "remote database" rather than a "centralized" one, suggesting applicability to more distributed data storage models. The core functionality of server-side rendering, client-side caching, and web-based viewing remains central to the invention (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:51-60).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶ 121).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the secure, web-based architecture of the Nuance PowerShare product, which provides remote access to medical imaging data, infringes the claimed system and method (Compl. ¶ 121, 145).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Nuance PowerShare product, which includes and integrates with the Mach7 eUnity and/or Calgary Scientific ResolutionMD "thin client" or "zero-footprint" viewers (Compl. ¶ 90, 142).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Nuance PowerShare product is described as an interconnected network for sharing medical imaging data among healthcare facilities, providers, and patients (Compl. ¶ 138). A core feature is its use of web-based and mobile viewers that provide "server-based rendering and streaming for instant access" to large datasets like cardiac CTs (Compl. ¶ 142). This allows users to view, share, and collaborate on diagnostic-quality 2D and 3D medical images using a standard web browser, without downloading the underlying patient data to the local device (Compl. ¶ 141, 144, 162). A diagram in the complaint depicts the PowerShare Network as a cloud-based hub connecting various healthcare entities and data sources (Compl. ¶ 139, Ex. 2.1). The complaint alleges the system provides benefits such as reduced costs and faster diagnosis by eliminating the need for physical media like CDs (Compl. ¶ 149).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,701,167 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. providing at least one central data storage medium containing the volume visualization dataset; | The PowerShare Network is a cloud-based platform that stores patient imaging data in a centralized cloud repository. | ¶138, ¶143 | col. 3:11-13 |
| b. providing at least one server in communication with the...database and capable of processing the...dataset to create virtual views... | The accused viewers utilize "server technology" and "server-based rendering" to process imaging data and create visualizations for the user. | ¶142, ¶159 | col. 3:13-17 |
| c. providing a client device linked to the...server...over the Internet, the client device having local data storage medium for storing frames of views... | The accused viewers operate within a standard web browser on a user's device. The eUnity viewer is alleged to "locally cache the remotely rendered images for the session." | ¶158, ¶162, ¶167 | col. 4:5-9 |
| d. requesting at the client device a series of three-dimensional virtual views... | Users interact with the viewer to manipulate images (e.g., zoom, pan, scroll, 3D reformatting), which constitutes a request for a series of new views. | ¶163, ¶176 | col. 4:9-12 |
| e. determining if any frame of the requested views...is stored on the local data storage medium; | The accused viewers are alleged to include functionality for image caching and fetching of remotely rendered images, which implies a determination of whether a frame is stored locally. | ¶153-¶155, ¶167 | col. 4:12-15 |
| f. sending from the client device to the server a request for any frame...not stored on the local data storage medium; | This functionality is alleged as part of the client-server architecture that provides remote viewing of a dataset contained on a centralized database. | ¶293(f) | col. 4:15-18 |
| g. at the server, creating the requested frames...from the volume visualization dataset in the central storage medium; | The accused viewers are described as performing server-side rendering, where the server creates the image views from the full dataset. A screenshot shows the resulting 2D and 3D views. | ¶142, ¶161, ¶162 | col. 4:18-21 |
| h. transmitting the created frames...from the server to the client device; | The accused viewers are alleged to stream the rendered image frames from the server to the client device for display. | ¶142, ¶215 | col. 4:21-23 |
| i. displaying the requested series of...views...by sequentially displaying frames transmitted from the server along with any frames...stored on the local data storage medium. | The accused system displays the sequence of requested views to the user, using either newly transmitted frames or locally cached frames. | ¶293(i) | col. 4:23-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a standard web browser's session cache qualifies as the "local data storage medium for storing frames" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue the patent requires a more specialized or persistent client-side storage mechanism.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, based on marketing materials and high-level descriptions, that the accused viewers perform local caching. A key factual dispute will likely concern the specific technical implementation of this caching. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused system explicitly "determin[es] if any frame... is stored" before sending a request, as required by the claim, versus relying on a generic browser caching protocol?
U.S. Patent No. 9,106,609 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. at least one transmitter for accepting volume visualization dataset... | The PowerShare platform allows users and facilities to upload and share DICOM studies and other images into its network. | ¶138, ¶140 | col. 3:8-11 |
| b. at least one central data storage medium... | PowerShare is described as a cloud-based network utilizing a "cloud repository" and a "highly secure SOC2 Type II data center" for data storage. | ¶143, ¶145 | col. 3:11-13 |
| c. a plurality of servers in communication with the...database... | The eUnity viewer is described as accommodating "load balancing across two or more gateways," which implies the use of multiple servers. An architecture diagram for ResolutionMD also depicts multiple servers. | ¶168, ¶234 | col. 3:13-17 |
| d. a resource manager device for load balancing the plurality of servers; | The eUnity viewer is explicitly alleged to provide "load balancing across two or more gateways" for sites with high study volume. | ¶168 | col. 3:17-19 |
| e. a security device controlling the plurality of communications... | The PowerShare platform is alleged to use a "sophisticated firewall architecture, strong data encryption," and other security controls to manage communications. | ¶145 | col. 3:19-24 |
| f. at least one physically secured site for housing the centralized database, plurality of servers... | The PowerShare platform allegedly utilizes a "highly secure SOC2 Type II data center." | ¶145 | col. 3:24-28 |
| g. a web application adapted to satisfy a user's request... | The accused eUnity and ResolutionMD viewers are described as "zero-footprint" applications that operate within a standard web browser to provide the user interface for viewing images. | ¶158, ¶162 | col. 3:28-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the "load balancing" feature described in the accused product's marketing materials (Compl. ¶ 168) meet the specific functional requirements of the claimed "resource manager device for load balancing"? The defense may argue that their system's load balancing is technically distinct from the functionality described in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a system with discrete components like a "transmitter," "resource manager," and "security device." An evidentiary question will be whether the integrated, cloud-based architecture of the PowerShare platform, as depicted in a system diagram (Compl. ¶ 234, Ex. 3.5), can be mapped onto these specific claimed elements or if it represents a fundamentally different, non-infringing design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "local data storage medium" (e.g., ’167 Patent, claim 1(c))
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for the infringement theory of the method claims, which rely on a client-side caching process. The definition will determine whether the functionality of a standard web browser's temporary memory or disk cache is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if a more specialized, application-controlled storage is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term or limit it to a specific technology. The specification refers to storing frames on the client to avoid a round trip to the server, a function that a standard browser cache performs (’167 Patent, col. 13:50-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a process of creating and comparing a "unique identifiable key" to retrieve a stored frame, which may suggest a more structured storage system than a simple browser cache (’167 Patent, col. 4:53-65). A flowchart in the patent family depicts "Local storage (Container) contains stored frames (Record)," which could imply a more formal data structure (’397 Patent, Fig. 5).
The Term: "resource manager device for load balancing the plurality of servers" (e.g., ’609 Patent, claim 1(d))
- Context and Importance: This term is a key component of the system claims. Infringement requires showing that the accused PowerShare platform contains a component that performs this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because cloud platforms often use integrated and dynamic resource allocation that may not map cleanly onto a discrete "device."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the resource manager's function as managing "the allocation and expansion of servers to handle the scalability of storage capacity and processing power dynamically" (’167 Patent, col. 7:36-40). This functional language could be argued to read broadly on any modern cloud-based load balancing and auto-scaling technology.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Figure 1 depicts the "Resource Manager" (92) as a distinct block within the system architecture, separate from the "Servers" (102). A party could argue this implies a physically or logically distinct component, potentially narrower than an integrated load balancing feature of a larger cloud service.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent family. It specifically alleges that in 2017, Plaintiff's representatives spoke with representatives of Client Outlook (the original developer of the eUnity viewer, now part of Defendant Mach7) at a trade conference and "informed the representatives of Plaintiff’s family of patents covering its technology" (Compl. ¶ 136). This allegation of actual notice forms the basis for the willfulness claim and the request for enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical mapping: can the functions described in the patent claims, which are rooted in a specific client-server architecture with discrete components (e.g., "local data storage medium," "resource manager device"), be construed to cover the functionality of the accused integrated, cloud-based "zero-footprint" viewers that operate within a standard web browser?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge: what evidence will support or contradict the allegation that Plaintiff provided actual notice of the patent family to Defendants' predecessor at a 2017 conference? The outcome will be determinative for the claim of willful infringement.