DCT

1:23-cv-00160

Data Health Partners Inc v. Teladoc Health Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00160, D. Del., 06/27/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant Teladoc Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and therefore a resident of the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Livongo diabetes management platform infringes three patents related to systems and methods for data-driven goal tracking and outcome optimization.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software platforms designed to improve behavioral and health outcomes by systematically collecting patient data, analyzing it against established goals, and providing automated alerts or interventions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patented technology originated from research at the Grafton School, a behavioral health organization, and was embodied in a product called REBOOT. This amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2023; the original complaint was filed on February 13, 2023, a date Plaintiff uses to anchor allegations of post-suit knowledge for indirect and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-15 Earliest Priority Date for ’812, ’554, and ’142 Patents
2013-05-13 AudioEye, Inc. announces partnership with Grafton
2014-09-10 Livongo launches its flagship diabetes treatment platform
2018-08-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,061,812 issues
2020-10-30 Teladoc Health completes merger with Livongo
2021-10-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,144,554 issues
2021-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,151,142 issues
2023-02-13 Original complaint filed
2023-06-27 Amended complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,061,812 - Platform for Optimizing Data Driven Outcomes

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,061,812, “Platform for Optimizing Data Driven Outcomes,” issued August 28, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty organizations face in tracking and managing outcomes for individuals with special needs, noting that existing systems were often paper-based or confined to a single location, making it difficult to share and act on relevant information in a timely manner (’812 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a networked system for tracking outcome-specific data. The system allows an administrator to establish accounts for "providers" and "clients," assign clients to providers, and then compile data received from the providers about the clients. This compiled data is then presented visually, and the system can include features like data mining to identify "best practices" and automated alerts when client data reaches certain thresholds (’812 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-56).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a systematic, automated method for a cyclical process of goal setting, data collection, and intervention, designed to improve outcomes and replace less efficient, paper-based tracking methods (Compl. ¶17, 22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Claim 1 is a method for tracking outcome specific data, comprising the elements of:
    • Receiving input establishing accounts for providers serving clients, including rules for determining client progress.
    • Assigning each client to one or more providers.
    • Prompting providers to provide required data about the clients’ well-being.
    • Compiling the data from providers to generate a score utilizing the rules.
    • Analyzing the compiled data and score to automatically determine a client’s status.
    • Automatically communicating an alert with the compiled data and status to the providers to intervene when the data varies from a threshold to become significant.

U.S. Patent No. 11,144,554 - Platform for Optimizing Goal Progression

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,144,554, “Platform for Optimizing Goal Progression,” issued October 12, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’812 Patent, the ’554 Patent addresses the challenge of helping individuals, particularly those with behavioral or other special needs, achieve prescribed goals by overcoming the limitations of traditional, non-systematic tracking methods (’554 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for tracking goal progression that involves not just collecting data but actively managing a "plan of action." The method includes establishing goals, a plan, and "thresholds" for a client; periodically receiving updated data from providers; compiling the data to determine if the thresholds are being met; and, critically, modifying the plan of action if the thresholds are not being met (’554 Patent, col. 40:48-41:10).
  • Technical Importance: This technology offers a structured framework for adaptive intervention, where a client’s plan is not static but is modified in response to ongoing performance data, creating a direct feedback loop between tracking and treatment (Compl. ¶17, 22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Claim 1 is a method for tracking goal progression, comprising the elements of:
    • Receiving input to establish an account for a client.
    • Assigning the client to one or more providers.
    • Determining treatment and assistance for the client, which is used to establish goals, a plan of action, and thresholds representing progress points.
    • Periodically receiving updated data from providers about the client’s status.
    • Compiling the data.
    • Determining whether the thresholds are being met based on the compiled data.
    • Modifying the plan of action in response to one or more thresholds not being met.

U.S. Patent No. 11,151,142 - Platform for Optimizing Goal Progression

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,151,142, “Platform for Optimizing Goal Progression,” issued October 19, 2021 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for tracking goal progression for individuals receiving treatment or assistance. It involves establishing accounts, defining desired outcomes and thresholds for clients, compiling performance data from providers, and automatically communicating alerts when the compiled data varies significantly from the established thresholds, thereby prompting intervention (’142 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Livongo diabetes management platform and the Livongo Blood Glucose Meter of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Livongo diabetes management platform and the Livongo Blood Glucose Meter (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶32).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused platform as a system that combines cloud-based analytics with an interactive blood glucose meter to help users manage chronic conditions like diabetes (Compl. ¶2, 23). The system allegedly collects real-time biometric data from users, analyzes it in the cloud based on individualized profiles, and delivers "actionable, personalized and timely recommendations" and alerts back to the user (Compl. ¶24, 28). The complaint alleges these "applied health signals" are created by combining data from devices, coaches, and web assets to extract "the drivers of behavior change" (Compl. ¶28). Teladoc acquired Livongo in 2020 for a reported $18.5 billion and is positioned as a "market leader[] in virtual care" (Compl. ¶27, 36).
  • Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint; therefore, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • Infringement Theory Summary: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly parallel the patented technology's structure (Compl. ¶29). The core of the infringement theory is that the Livongo platform performs the claimed methods by:
    1. Establishing accounts and goals: Users (the claimed "clients") are enrolled in the platform, where goals and thresholds (e.g., target blood glucose ranges) are established (Compl. ¶28).
    2. Collecting and compiling data: The platform collects real-time data from users' devices, such as the blood glucose meter (Compl. ¶28).
    3. Analyzing and determining status: The platform's cloud-based analytics automatically evaluate the collected data against individualized profiles and rules to determine the user's progress toward their goals (Compl. ¶28).
    4. Intervening and modifying: Based on the analysis, the system automatically generates alerts and delivers personalized recommendations, which the complaint maps to the claimed "alert" and "modifying the plan of action" steps (Compl. ¶28).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "client" as used in the patents, which arose from a behavioral health context, can be construed to cover a user of a diabetes management platform. Similarly, it raises the question of whether the platform's automated "cloud-based analytics" and remote "coaches" can meet the claim limitations directed to a "provider."
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the platform's alerts and recommendations constitute a "modification" of a "plan of action" as required by the ’554 Patent. The factual analysis may turn on what constitutes a "plan of action" in the accused system and whether the automated feedback is sufficient to meet the "modifying" limitation. For the ’812 patent, a key question may be what evidence shows the accused system generates a "score" utilizing "rules" as specifically required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "client"

    • Context and Importance: The patents’ specifications are heavily rooted in the context of individuals with "significant emotional or behavioral challenges" (’812 Patent, col. 1:16-18). Defendant may argue that "client" should be limited to this context, which would not cover users of a diabetes management platform. Plaintiff’s infringement theory depends on a broader construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the subject of the outcome process "may be a client, patient, student, service provider, program, product, service, device, organization, business, department, or so forth." (’812 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background" section focuses exclusively on organizations that help "individuals with disabilities and significant emotional or behavioral challenges" and the specific work done at the Grafton School to address these issues (’812 Patent, col. 1:12-25).

  • The Term: "provider"

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents describe "providers" as entities like caregivers or schools that serve clients (’812 Patent, col. 4:16-18), while the accused system is a largely automated platform. The infringement case may depend on whether the automated analytics and coaching functions of the Livongo system can be considered a "provider" that is "prompted" to "provide data" as claimed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a provider broadly as an "organization, business, group, school, facility, user, or caregiver, working toward specific goals or objectives" (’812 Patent, col. 4:15-18), which could arguably encompass the corporate entity Defendant and its automated systems.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require "prompting the providers to provide data," language which may suggest an active role by a person or distinct entity rather than the passive, automated data collection from a user's connected device (’812 Patent, col. 31:25-29).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendant instructs and encourages customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner through materials such as the "Livongo Blood Glucose Monitoring System Owner's Manual" (Compl. ¶34, 40, 46).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint asserts pre-suit knowledge based on Defendant's status as a "market leader," its alleged knowledge that its business could be based on technology patented by others, and the public nature of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶36, 42, 48). It also alleges post-suit knowledge dating from the filing of the original complaint on February 13, 2023 (Compl. ¶36, 42, 48).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "client" and "provider," rooted in the patents’ specification context of human-centric behavioral health management, be construed broadly enough to read on the users and automated, cloud-based analytical systems of the accused chronic disease management platform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mapping: does the complaint provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the accused platform's functions—such as generating alerts or recommendations—perform the specific, structured method steps recited in the independent claims, including generating a "score" ('812 Patent) or "modifying the plan of action" ('554 Patent), or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?