DCT

1:23-cv-00636

MDSave Inc v. Sesame Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01338, W.D. Tex., 01/04/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that all Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district. Allegations include that Defendants offer and sell services to customers in the district, and that Defendant Green Imaging maintains a physical place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ online healthcare marketplaces infringe two patents related to facilitating the purchase of bundled medical services, and that these marketplaces were built using proprietary data illegally scraped from Plaintiffs' website.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to online e-commerce platforms that allow patients to search for, compare pre-negotiated prices for, and purchase bundled medical services, a model of increasing relevance in an era of high-deductible health insurance plans.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation, post-grant proceedings, or specific prosecution history for the patents-in-suit. The allegations combine patent infringement with claims of data theft, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-01-01 Plaintiff MDSave launches its website
2013-08-16 Priority Date for ’072 and ’423 Patents
2015-09-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,123,072 Issues
2021-10-31 Approximate date of alleged improper data scraping activity increases
2021-11-01 Approximate date Plaintiffs learned of Defendants' alleged infringement
2021-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,170,423 Issues
2022-01-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,123,072 - "Network-Based Marketplace Service for Facilitating Purchases of Services and Products"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty patients face in comparing costs for medical procedures due to the complexities of the managed care system and the rise of high-deductible health plans, which create a need for price transparency. (’072 Patent, col. 1:24-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus, specifically an application server, that provides an online marketplace for medical services. This server maintains a database of "service offers," including pre-negotiated "bundled set[s] of services," and facilitates a transaction where a user can select an offer, provide payment information from a funding source, and complete a pre-paid purchase, which is then represented by a voucher. (’072 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: The patented system provides a technical framework for an e-commerce model in healthcare, enabling consumers to shop for medical procedures based on upfront, pre-negotiated prices. (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13. (Compl. ¶¶79, 162).
  • Essential elements of Claim 13, a method claim, include:
    • Providing a network service via an application server.
    • Maintaining a service offer database with records for service offers, including at least one offer for a "bundled set of healthcare services," where each record includes a primary service, purchase price, and payment information.
    • The network service performing the steps of: receiving a user's selection of a service offer; receiving purchase information specifying a funding source; issuing a request to that funding source to process the purchase; generating a purchase information record with a unique confirmation number; and storing that record. (’072 Patent, col. 60:48 - col. 62:14).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,170,423 - "Provisioning Medical Resources Triggered by a Lifecycle Event"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same healthcare cost and transparency issues as the ’072 Patent, but adds the context of optimizing the use of scarce medical resources, such as specialized professionals and facilities, which can be limited at specific times or locations. (’423 Patent, col. 2:11-31, 2:42-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that responds to a "patient lifecycle event" (e.g., a doctor's order, a change in diagnosis) detected from a patient's electronic health record (EHR). In response to this trigger, the system determines and offers appropriate medical service bundles for selection and prepayment, potentially with discounts based on optimizing medical facility utilization. (’423 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-41).
  • Technical Importance: This technology moves beyond a passive, user-search-driven marketplace to a proactive system that uses clinical data triggers to suggest and bundle relevant services, aiming to improve both cost-effectiveness and resource allocation. (’423 Patent, col. 2:49-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶85, 168).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, include:
    • Receiving an electronic message with an EHR encoding updated patient medical data.
    • Determining a patient's current "lifecycle state" from the EHR.
    • Determining if a "patient lifecycle event occurred" by comparing the current state to a historical one.
    • In response to such an event, determining and presenting appropriate medical services to the patient for selection and prepayment. (’423 Patent, col. 64:41-65:2).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the websites and associated online marketplace services operated by Defendants Sesame, Tripment, and Green Imaging. (Compl. ¶¶14, 79, 85).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants' websites function as online marketplaces allowing consumers to purchase healthcare services from various providers. (Compl. ¶¶8, 22). It is alleged that the core data populating these marketplaces—including lists of providers, available procedures, and negotiated prices—was obtained by illegally "scraping" Plaintiffs' website. (Compl. ¶¶9, 47). A screenshot of the MDSave search interface shows the type of procedure and location data allegedly scraped by Defendants. (Compl. p. 15). The complaint further alleges that after a consumer makes a purchase, Defendants generate and sell "vouchers" for the selected services, sometimes by purchasing, altering, and reselling Plaintiffs' own vouchers through a multi-level arrangement. (Compl. ¶¶11-12, 51, 63). Defendants are positioned as direct competitors who allegedly used Plaintiffs' data and patented technology to unlawfully enter the market. (Compl. ¶¶7, 50).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as exhibits but does not include them in the provided filing; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

’072 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe at least Claim 13 of the ’072 Patent by operating their respective online marketplaces. (Compl. ¶¶79, 162). The theory is that Defendants' systems perform the claimed method steps by: (1) providing a network service through their websites (the application server); (2) maintaining a database of service offers (allegedly populated with Plaintiffs' scraped data); and (3) facilitating a transaction where a user selects a service, provides payment, and receives a "voucher" (the purchase information record). (Compl. ¶79). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the search results on Plaintiffs' platform, illustrating the detailed provider and pricing data that Defendants are accused of copying to build their infringing systems. (Compl. p. 16).

’423 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Defendants infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’423 Patent but does not provide a specific narrative theory explaining how the accused services meet the claim limitations. (Compl. ¶¶85, 168). Specifically, the complaint does not allege facts suggesting that Defendants' systems are triggered by a "patient lifecycle event" or that they receive and process "EHR encoding updated patient medical data" as required by the claim. (Compl. ¶85). The infringement allegations appear to rest on the general marketplace functionality also accused of infringing the ’072 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions (’072 Patent): A central question will be evidentiary: can Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants' systems, as they actually operate, perform each and every step of the claimed method? While the complaint alleges Defendants copied Plaintiffs' data, the court will need to determine if their underlying system architecture for processing transactions and generating "vouchers" maps onto the specific steps recited in Claim 13.
    • Scope and Technical Mismatch (’423 Patent): A primary issue will be a potential mismatch between the asserted claim and the accused functionality. The court will have to address whether the user-driven search functionality described in the complaint can be construed as responding to a "patient lifecycle event" initiated by an "EHR encoding updated patient medical data." The complaint’s factual allegations describe a passive, consumer-search marketplace, which raises the question of whether there is a basis for alleging infringement of the ’423 Patent’s proactive, clinically-triggered system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bundled set of services" (’072 Patent, Claim 13)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the scope of the ’072 Patent. The dispute may turn on whether the term covers any combination of items sold together (e.g., a single procedure and a facility fee) or requires a combination of multiple distinct clinical services, potentially from different providers, as described in examples within the patent and complaint.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not further limit the term, reciting only "a bundled set of healthcare services." (’072 Patent, col. 60:55-56).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint’s own example of bundling describes a multi-provider knee replacement including fees for "the surgery, the anesthesia, the facility, and the physical therapy." (Compl. ¶3). The patent’s abstract similarly describes bundling a "primary service" with "secondary services." (’072 Patent, Abstract).

  • The Term: "patient lifecycle event" (’423 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core inventive concept and primary limitation of the ’423 Patent. Infringement hinges on whether any action within the accused systems qualifies as such an event. Practitioners may focus on this term because the facts alleged in the complaint (a user searching a public website) do not appear to align with the patent’s description of a clinical trigger.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract provides a list of potential events, including "a doctor's order, diagnosis, condition change, payment, admission, or discharge." (’423 Patent, Abstract). An argument could be made that a user initiating a search constitutes a "payment" event in a broad sense.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires that the lifecycle event be determined by a processor that has received an "EHR encoding updated patient medical data" and compared a "historical patient lifecycle state with the current patient lifecycle state." (’423 Patent, col. 64:41-51). This language strongly suggests the event must be a clinical or administrative change detected from a formal patient record, not a consumer's web search.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge, arising from Defendants’ alleged acts of studying, scraping, and copying Plaintiffs’ website, which lists the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶163, 165, 169, 171).

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

  1. A question of proof: Will Plaintiffs' evidence of data scraping and reselling altered vouchers be sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants' underlying software architecture performs every technical step of the marketplace method recited in Claim 13 of the ’072 Patent, or will Defendants be able to establish a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  2. A question of technical scope: A core issue for the ’423 Patent will be whether the term "patient lifecycle event," which the patent defines in the context of clinical data from an EHR, can be construed to read on a consumer-initiated search on a public-facing website. The complaint's factual allegations raise a significant question as to whether the accused systems contain the necessary triggering mechanism claimed by the patent.