DCT

3:18-cv-01002

Eric A Brown v. Pamela Andreatta

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-01002, M.D. Fla., 08/03/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in Duval County, Florida, as it is the residence of Defendant Andreatta and the principal place of business for the nominal defendant, Metrics Medicus, Inc.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that his co-founder and purported 50/50 business partner improperly converted the assets of their jointly-owned company, Metrics Medicus, Inc., including by fraudulently assigning the company's key patent to herself individually.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to an electronic platform for creating, administering, and analyzing performance assessments, particularly for complex tasks in the healthcare field.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Duval County, Florida, and subsequently removed to federal court. The dispute centers on the ownership of Metrics Medicus, Inc., and its intellectual property, which the two named inventors, Brown and Andreatta, had previously assigned to the corporation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-01-01 Brown and Andreatta allegedly begin collaboration.
2015-09-03 Email exchange allegedly confirms "equal partners" agreement.
2016-05-16 Metrics Medicus, Inc. incorporated in Florida.
2016-10-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,026,052.
2017-10-02 Patent application for the '052 Patent is submitted.
2018-05-08 Metrics Medicus, Inc. receives Notice of Allowance for the '052 Patent.
2018-07-10 Defendant Andreatta allegedly establishes a new company, Metrics Healthcare, LLC.
2018-07-13 Defendant Andreatta allegedly executes an unauthorized assignment of the '052 Patent from Metrics Medicus, Inc. to herself.
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,026,052 issues.
2018-07-27 Plaintiff Brown demands Defendant Andreatta cease unauthorized activities and return property.
2018-08-03 Complaint Filing Date.

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,026,052 - "Electronic Task Assessment Platform"

(’052 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of conducting objective and consistent assessments of human performance in healthcare. It notes that conventional assessments are often binary (e.g., complete/incomplete), captured in non-electronic formats, and do not allow for easy comparison against meaningful benchmarks, making deep analysis inefficient and challenging (ʼ052 Patent, col. 1:24-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that provides an "assessment builder" on a first computing device (e.g., a web browser on a PC) to create customizable assessments. This constructed assessment is then presented on a second computing device (e.g., a mobile app) for a user to complete. A central server receives the completed assessment, performs statistical analysis, and generates a specialized report with metrics that can be viewed on either device, thereby enabling objective evaluation and tracking of performance over time (ʼ052 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The platform aims to provide a more accurate, usable, and analytically robust system for performance assessment than conventional paper-based or simple checklist methods (ʼ052 Patent, col. 1:56-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are central to the dispute, but the patent's value derives from its independent claims. The key independent claims are Claim 1 (a system claim) and Claim 14 (a method claim).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • A first device comprising a first user interface and a web browser.
    • A second device comprising a second user interface and an assessment application.
    • At least one server communicatively coupled to the devices, which is caused to:
      • provide an "assessment builder" with "customizable assessment components" defining "healthcare related performance evaluation tasks".
      • receive a "constructed assessment" from the first device.
      • present the constructed assessment to the second device.
      • receive a "completed assessment" from the second device.
      • "generate statistical metrics" for the completed assessment.
      • "generate a report" including graphical indicators of the metrics.
      • display the report, which is "specially optimized for display" on a report viewer.
  • The complaint does not assert any specific claims for infringement purposes, as the dispute is over ownership.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

This case does not involve a traditional accused instrumentality for infringement. Instead, the dispute centers on the ownership and control of the commercial embodiment of the '052 Patent, identified in the complaint as the "CareAssess Product" (Compl. ¶32).

Product Identification

The CareAssess Product (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the CareAssess Product consists of two primary parts: (1) the "CareAssess platform" and (2) "assessment instruments," which are data files describing standards of care for medical procedures (Compl. ¶¶32, 35).
  • The platform itself comprises a smartphone application connected to a back-end web portal and database (Compl. ¶34). This architecture allows healthcare providers to download assessment instruments and use the application to conduct "objective real-time quality assessments of different medical procedures" (Compl. ¶¶33, 37).
  • The complaint alleges that the CareAssess Product, including the '052 Patent, is "Metrics' most valuable asset" and that the variety of available assessment instruments is "essential to the marketability" of the product (Compl. ¶¶38, 45).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement against a third-party product. The core of the legal action is an ownership dispute over the patent itself and related corporate assets. Therefore, an infringement analysis is not applicable.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While claim construction is not at issue for infringement, the scope of the patent's claims is central to determining its value, which is a key element in the claims for conversion and damages. The interpretation of the following terms from independent claim 1 may be critical for valuation purposes.

The Term: "assessment builder"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core creation functionality of the platform. A broad interpretation could cover a wide range of content creation tools, while a narrow interpretation might limit it to the specific template-based systems shown in the patent's figures. Its scope directly impacts the range of competing systems the patent could potentially cover, thereby influencing its market value (ʼ052 Patent, col. 2:7).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose specific structural limitations on the builder, referring generally to a "plurality of customizable assessment components" (ʼ052 Patent, col. 25:5-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily features embodiments with specific editable text fields and pre-populated menus (e.g., FIG. 9A), which could be argued to limit the term to a more structured, form-based creation tool rather than a free-form one (ʼ052 Patent, col. 16:25-36).

The Term: "healthcare related performance evaluation tasks"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the field of use for the claimed invention. The value of the patent depends on whether it is construed narrowly to cover only the specific clinical and procedural tasks described in the specification (e.g., intubation, line placement) or more broadly to encompass any performance assessment within the general domain of healthcare, including administrative or educational functions (ʼ052 Patent, col. 25:8-11).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists a wide array of clinical specialties, from "Administration" and "Medical Education" to dozens of surgical and medical fields, suggesting an intent to cover a broad spectrum of healthcare activities (ʼ052 Patent, col. 17:1-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples and figures are almost exclusively focused on direct, hands-on clinical procedures (e.g., "US Guided Central Line Placement" in FIG. 7A). A party could argue these specific embodiments implicitly limit the scope of the more general claim language.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Ownership and Control (Declaratory Judgment): The complaint alleges that Brown and Andreatta agreed to be "50/50 partners" and "equal owners" of Metrics Medicus, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶15, 25). It seeks a declaratory judgment that Brown owns 50% of the company's stock and that Defendant Andreatta's transfer of corporate property, including the '052 Patent, to herself was unauthorized (Compl. ¶¶70, 77).
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The complaint alleges that as an officer and director, Andreatta owed a fiduciary duty to both the corporation (Metrics) and to Brown. This duty was allegedly breached by, among other things, "misappropriating and converting Metrics' assets and property," including assigning the '052 Patent to herself (Compl. ¶¶81, 103).
  • Conversion: A separate count alleges that Andreatta converted the assets and property of Metrics, specifically including the '052 Patent, for her own personal use after having "made unauthorized withdrawals from the account of Metrics" and "improperly deleted and destroyed Metrics' files" (Compl. ¶108).
  • Injunctive Relief: Plaintiff seeks a temporary and permanent injunction to, among other things, remove Andreatta as an officer and director, and compel her to "transfer all assets taken from Metrics by Andreatta, including the Patent, back to Metrics" (Compl. ¶¶ WHEREFORE, p. 11).

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

The resolution of this case appears to depend less on patent law principles and more on corporate and contract law. The central questions for the court are:

  1. A core issue will be one of corporate governance and ownership: What was the actual ownership structure of Metrics Medicus, Inc.? The court will need to determine if an enforceable agreement for 50/50 ownership existed between Brown and Andreatta, despite the alleged failure to formally issue shares.
  2. A key legal question will be the validity of the patent assignment: Did Andreatta, as a director and officer, have the authority to unilaterally assign the '052 Patent from the corporation to herself without the consent of the other director, Brown? This analysis will likely involve Florida corporate law and the company's articles of incorporation.
  3. A central evidentiary question for damages will be the valuation of the converted assets: If the transfer is found to be improper, the court will need to determine the fair market value of the CareAssess Product and the '052 Patent at the time of the alleged conversion, a process that will depend heavily on the patent's claim scope and commercial potential.