DCT
1:17-cv-00170
University Of Florida Research Foundation Inc v. Philips Electronics North America Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Netherlands) and Philips Electronics North America Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dell Graham, P.A.; Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00170, N.D. Fla., 07/05/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Philips has a regular and established place of business in the district through its 2007 acquisition of Invivio Corporation, which maintains a principal place of business in Gainesville, Florida, and markets patient monitoring devices.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s IntelliBridge data connectivity system infringes a patent related to methods for aggregating, standardizing, and presenting physiologic data from multiple, disparate bedside medical devices.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge in clinical settings of integrating data from numerous proprietary medical monitoring devices, which often use different data formats, into a single, cohesive, and real-time display to support medical decision-making.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously licensed through a series of corporate acquisitions, ultimately to Medtronic. A 2016 lawsuit by Plaintiff against Medtronic resulted in a settlement that made the license non-exclusive, enabling the Plaintiff to pursue infringement claims against other market participants. Plaintiff also expressly reserves its sovereign immunity from any inter partes review proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-05 | '251 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application Filing) |
| 2006-06-13 | '251 Patent Issue Date |
| 2007 | Philips acquires Invivio Corporation in Gainesville, FL |
| 2008 | Somanetics Corp. acquires license holder ICUA |
| 2010 | Covidien PLC acquires Somanetics |
| 2015 | Medtronic acquires Covidien PLC |
| 2016 | UFRF files suit against Medtronic and Covidien |
| 2017-07-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,062,251 - “Managing Critical Care Physiologic Data Using Data Synthesis Technology (DST)”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,062,251, “Managing Critical Care Physiologic Data Using Data Synthesis Technology (DST),” issued June 13, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulties faced by healthcare providers in critical care environments, where patient data is generated by numerous bedside machines from different manufacturers using incompatible, proprietary data protocols (’251 Patent, col. 2:28-44). This forces clinicians to either manually transcribe data onto paper flowsheets—a time-consuming and error-prone process—or be "locked into" a single manufacturer's ecosystem, limiting equipment choices (’251 Patent, col. 2:45-56; Compl. ¶¶ 18-21). A photograph in the complaint shows an inventor holding a two-foot-thick stack of such paper charts for a single infant, illustrating the scale of this data management problem (Compl. p. 7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system to automatically receive data streams from at least two different bedside machines, convert the data from their proprietary, machine-specific formats into a standardized, "machine independent format," and present the integrated results on a single graphical user interface (’251 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-41). The system architecture uses components like device-specific drivers and a centralized data repository to manage this translation and integration, as shown in the patent's Figure 2 (’251 Patent, Fig. 2). A photograph of an early version of the commercialized "iCuro" product shows the integrated data streams displayed on a single monitor at a patient's bedside (Compl. p. 18).
- Technical Importance: This technology was designed to overcome device incompatibility and vendor lock-in, enabling hospitals to use best-of-breed monitoring equipment from various manufacturers while still achieving a unified, real-time view of patient data for clinical decision support (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint primarily details infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 97-99).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- receiving physiologic treatment data from at least two bedside machines;
- converting said physiologic treatment data from a machine specific format into a machine independent format within a computing device remotely located from said bedside machines;
- performing at least one programmatic action involving said machine-independent data; and
- presenting results from said programmatic actions upon a bedside graphical user interface.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶96).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names Defendant's "IntelliBridge System," which is described as a "family and product line of data connectivity systems and products" (Compl. ¶95). Specific components identified include the "Flexible Module Rack" and the "IntelliBridge EC40 or EC80 Hub" (Compl. ¶¶ 97, 99).
Functionality and Market Context
- The IntelliBridge System is alleged to function as a data integration platform, supporting approximately 250 device models from 60 different manufacturers (Compl. ¶100). The complaint alleges that the system uses its Hub to detect connected bedside devices, select the appropriate interface to capture the device's native "medical data interface language," and pass the data to an "interfacing engine" for conversion (Compl. ¶99). This allows data from disparate sources to be aggregated for monitoring.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint refers to a claim chart in Exhibit D, which was not available for review. The following chart is constructed from the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
'251 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving physiologic treatment data from at least two bedside machines | The IntelliBridge system utilizes its "Flexible Module Rack" to receive data from multiple bedside devices, supporting models from approximately 60 different manufacturers. | ¶¶97, 100 | col. 13:58-62 |
| converting said physiologic treatment data from a machine specific format into a machine independent format within a computing device remotely located from said bedside machines | The IntelliBridge EC40 or EC80 Hub detects bedside devices and captures their data, which is then passed to an "interfacing engine" for conversion. This conversion allegedly occurs "remotely from the bedside machines." | ¶99 | col. 13:63-65 |
| performing at least one programmatic action involving said machine-independent data | The system allegedly performs programmatic actions on the converted data, including "drug, ventilation, hemodynamic, and oxygenation calculations as well as alarm alert messages." | ¶101 | col. 14:1-2 |
| presenting results from said programmatic actions upon a bedside graphical user interface | The system is alleged to "present results from those programmatic actions upon a bedside graphical user interface." | ¶102 | col. 14:3-5 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the data conversion to occur in a "computing device remotely located from said bedside machines." A central dispute may arise over the proper construction of "remotely located." The infringement theory depends on whether the accused IntelliBridge Hub and "interfacing engine" meet this definition.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused system performs specific "programmatic action[s]," such as calculations and alarm generation. A key factual question for the court will be whether the IntelliBridge system itself performs these actions on the converted data, or if it primarily functions as a conduit, passing the converted data to a separate, downstream clinical information system that performs those actions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "remotely located"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed system architecture and the infringement analysis. The defendant may argue for a narrow construction requiring significant physical or network distance (e.g., a central server in a data center), while the plaintiff may argue for a broader construction meaning any device that is functionally separate and not physically integrated into the chassis of the bedside machine itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical location of the accused IntelliBridge Hub relative to the bedside machines will be a critical fact.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification distinguishes between the "bedside device" (205) and the "centralized data repository" (230), which are connected via a "trusted network" (210), suggesting functional and potentially physical separation (’251 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define a minimum distance for "remotely located." An argument could be made that the term's meaning is relative to the "bedside machines," and its scope could be limited by embodiments discussed in the specification, which consistently depict a networked architecture rather than a co-located peripheral.
The Term: "programmatic action"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine the threshold for infringement of this active step. The dispute will likely center on whether merely reformatting, storing, or displaying data qualifies, or if a more substantive data transformation or analysis is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad. The specification provides examples such as displaying trends, which could be interpreted as a simple programmatic action of organizing and presenting data over time (’251 Patent, Fig. 8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes functions like data reconciliation and the creation of "composite" graphs from multiple machine inputs, suggesting that a "programmatic action" involves more than a simple data pass-through (’251 Patent, col. 12:40-52). A defendant could argue the term requires a substantive synthesis of data, not just presentation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "sales literature, advertising, updating, training, and instructions" that direct medical professionals to use the IntelliBridge system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶106, 110).
- Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patent "since at least as early as the filing of this complaint" (Compl. ¶108). This allegation could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement. The prayer for relief seeks attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which applies to exceptional cases (Compl. p. 27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the claim term "remotely located," which describes the placement of the data-converting computer, be construed to read on the accused IntelliBridge Hub, which may be situated in close proximity to the bedside machines it serves? The outcome may depend on whether the term is interpreted to require functional separation or a more significant physical distance.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional depth: does the accused IntelliBridge system "perform... at least one programmatic action" on the converted data, as required by Claim 1? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating whether the accused system itself executes substantive calculations and generates alerts, or if it primarily acts as a data translator and conduit for a separate, downstream patient monitoring application.