8:23-cv-01288
Epowerdoc LLC v. Corrohealth Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EPOWERdoc, LLC (Nebraska)
- Defendant: CorroHealth, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fee & Jeffries, P.A.; Pennington Oliak, PLLC
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-01288, M.D. Fla., 06/08/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff EPOWERdoc asserts venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because Defendant CorroHealth does business in the district and is subject to personal jurisdiction there, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, namely CorroHealth's infringement accusations directed at EPOWERdoc's Tampa office, occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its EMRDoc emergency department information system does not infringe Defendant's patent related to a method for electronic data entry and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to electronic medical record (EMR) systems designed to allow clinicians to efficiently enter, record, and report patient data in fast-paced environments like hospital emergency departments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this lawsuit was precipitated by a "threatening letter" from CorroHealth to EPOWERdoc, accusing EPOWERdoc of infringing the patent-in-suit. EPOWERdoc alleges it responded by asserting its non-infringement and the patent's invalidity, but CorroHealth "persisted" in its infringement claims, creating a justiciable controversy. The complaint also raises an allegation of inequitable conduct, asserting the patent applicant knew of EPOWERdoc's prior art paper forms and failed to disclose them to the USPTO during prosecution.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-01 | EPOWERdoc's prior paper forms allegedly in use (approximate date) |
| 2001-08-01 | ’106 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-11-25 | ’106 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-06-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,898,106 - "Method for Entering, Recording, Distributing and Reporting Data"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,898,106, "Method for Entering, Recording, Distributing and Reporting Data," issued November 25, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art computer systems for data entry in medical emergency rooms as "wholly inadequate," "clumsy and difficult to navigate" when large amounts of detailed data must be recorded quickly and efficiently (’106 Patent, col. 1:28-48). Conventional systems were seen as failing to meet the need for rapid, detailed, and easily reportable data capture.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system for data entry that uses pre-defined templates with selectable clinical items. A user, such as a physician, can make "yes/no entries" which the system then automatically records and transforms into a "readable prose report" (’106 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to allow for a more intuitive and rapid data entry process, for example by recognizing different user inputs (e.g., a left mouse click versus a right mouse click, or tapping on different sides of a screen item) as corresponding to positive and negative findings, respectively, which are then compiled into a narrative clinical report (’106 Patent, col. 4:31-44; Fig. 16).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method sought to improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinical documentation by structuring data capture through templates while outputting it in a familiar, human-readable narrative format, thereby reducing the burden on physicians in high-pressure settings. (Compl. ¶6; ’106 Patent, col. 1:40-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 14 as being at issue through CorroHealth's accusations, though it refers to it as "Claim 1" throughout (Compl. ¶9, ¶15). Based on the patent text, the complaint appears to be referencing independent method claim 14.
- Essential elements of independent claim 14 include:
- presenting a listing of chief medical complaints on a computer display;
- receiving a selection of a chief medical complaint and, in response, presenting screen presentations of a corresponding template with selectable clinical items;
- receiving "yes/no data entries" for the clinical items, "wherein the yes/no data entries are entered primarily without the use of conventional check boxes/radio buttons";
- wherein "a first type of yes/no data entry indicates a positive finding, and a second type of yes/no data entry indicates a negative finding";
- requiring an "affirmative selection" for both positive and negative findings, performed on the textual representation of the clinical item; and
- displaying a "first visual indicator" for a positive finding and a "second visual indicator" for a negative finding.
- The complaint does not assert any dependent claims but notes that CorroHealth's accusations pertained to "at least" the primary independent claim (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Plaintiff’s "EMRDoc emergency department information system" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the EMRDoc system as a "comprehensive suite of emergency department documentation systems for hospitals" designed to make hospital management more efficient (Compl. ¶6). The complaint provides limited affirmative detail on the product's specific functionality. Instead, it focuses on what the product allegedly does not do, stating that the EMRDoc product does not infringe because it "does not include a 'first type of yes/no data entry' and a 'second type of yes/no data entry'" as required by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's central non-infringement argument as it relates to key elements of the asserted patent claim.
’106 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving yes/no data entries for the selectable clinical items at the computing device, wherein the yes/no data entries are entered primarily without the use of conventional check boxes/radio buttons... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. | col. 13:4-10 | |
| wherein a first type of yes/no data entry indicates a positive finding, and a second type of yes/no data entry indicates a negative finding, | Plaintiff EPOWERdoc alleges its EMRDoc product does not include a "first type of yes/no data entry" and a "second type of yes/no data entry" as set forth in the claims. | ¶15 | col. 13:11-14 |
| wherein a selection of a positive finding ... and a selection of a negative finding ... require an affirmative selection from the medical professional... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. | col. 13:15-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will concern the scope of the claim phrase "a first type of yes/no data entry... and a second type of yes/no data entry." The question is whether this language is limited to the specific user interface actions disclosed in the patent's embodiments (e.g., tapping the left versus the right side of a text label) or if it can be read more broadly to cover other methods of distinguishing between positive and negative inputs within an EMR system.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the EMRDoc system actually functions to receive positive and negative clinical findings from a user. The court will need to compare the operational mechanism of the EMRDoc system against the specific data entry methods required by the claim language. The complaint's assertion that its product lacks these features suggests a fundamental mismatch in technical operation will be its primary defense (Compl. ¶15).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a first type of yes/no data entry ... and a second type of yes/no data entry"
- Context and Importance: This paired set of terms appears to be the primary basis for EPOWERdoc's non-infringement position (Compl. ¶15). The definition of what constitutes these two distinct "types" of data entry will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether EPOWERdoc's data input method falls within or outside the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that data entry can be by "pen strokes, by clicking a mouse, by use of a keyboard, or the like," which could suggest the "type" of entry is not narrowly restricted (’106 Patent, col. 4:38-40). A party could argue that any two distinct user actions for 'yes' and 'no' meet this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes and illustrates specific embodiments, such as "a tablet pen touches the left side of an unmarked finding" for a positive entry and a user "right clicks or taps the right side of an unmarked finding" for a negative entry (’106 Patent, col. 6:17-22). The figures and detailed description also reference drawing a circle versus a backslash as distinct entry types (’106 Patent, col. 6:31-34). This could support an interpretation limiting the term to these specific kinds of spatial or symbolic user interactions.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
This section is not applicable, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. However, the complaint does request a judgment that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285," which could entitle EPOWERdoc to attorney's fees if successful (Compl. ¶22).
Invalidity and Unenforceability
EPOWERdoc makes several allegations regarding the invalidity and unenforceability of the ’106 patent.
- Anticipation/Obviousness (§§ 102/103): The complaint alleges the patent is invalid in light of prior art, specifically citing "US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0004729 to Zach" and EPOWERdoc's own "prior paper forms" that have allegedly been in use since 2000 (Compl. ¶16, ¶20).
- Patent Ineligible Subject Matter (§101): The complaint alleges the patent is directed to the "abstract idea of collecting data and organizing the data into data fields" without adding an inventive concept, claiming it simply uses standard computers for functions previously done manually (Compl. ¶17-18).
- Inequitable Conduct: The complaint alleges that the applicant for the ’106 patent had knowledge of EPOWERdoc's prior paper templates and, without disclosing this known prior art to the patent examiner, rendered the patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Definitional Scope: The primary infringement question will be one of claim construction: can the phrase "a first type of yes/no data entry ... and a second type of yes/no data entry" be construed broadly to cover any distinct user inputs for positive and negative findings, or is its meaning confined to the specific spatial (e.g., left-tap vs. right-tap) or symbolic (e.g., circle vs. backslash) interactions detailed in the patent's specification?
Patent Validity under §101: A core validity challenge will be whether the claims of the ’106 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The court will likely analyze whether the claims, which recite a method of collecting, organizing, and reporting medical data on a computer, offer a sufficient "inventive concept" to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Inequitable Conduct and Prior Art: A key evidentiary question will be whether EPOWERdoc can prove the serious allegation of inequitable conduct. This will require evidence that the patent applicant not only knew about EPOWERdoc's prior art forms but also withheld them from the USPTO with a specific intent to deceive the examiner. This issue is linked to the factual question of whether those paper forms are indeed material prior art to the claimed invention.