DCT

9:18-cv-80670

20 20 Vision Center LLC v. Vision Precision Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:18-cv-80670, S.D. Fla., 06/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants reside in Florida, maintain a principal place of business within the district, and have consented to venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ telehealth-based eye examination systems and services infringe a patent related to teleophthalmology systems, in addition to claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract arising from a prior licensing relationship.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for teleophthalmology, enabling eye care practitioners to remotely conduct comprehensive vision and eye health examinations for customers at separate diagnostic locations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties had a licensing relationship from approximately August 2015 until Plaintiff terminated the agreements around September 2016 for non-payment. Plaintiff further alleges it provided Defendants with actual notice of the asserted patent and their infringing conduct by letter on or about March 30, 2017. The complaint also notes that this action consolidates a prior related case involving an affiliate of the Defendants.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-11-06 ’062 Patent Priority Date
2015-08-28 Parties enter into first Telehealth Agreement
2016-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062 Issues
2016-09-01 Plaintiff terminates Telehealth Agreements
2017-03-21 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendants regarding concerns of infringement
2018-06-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062 - *"Systems and Methods for Enabling Customers to Obtain Vision and Eye Health Examinations"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062, "Systems and Methods for Enabling Customers to Obtain Vision and Eye Health Examinations," issued January 5, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that many individuals fail to undergo regular, comprehensive eye examinations due to the time, cost, and inconvenience associated with traditional in-person visits to an eye care professional (’062 Patent, col. 2:63-65; col. 3:1-14). Existing automated systems are described as being limited, often providing only basic vision screenings without the involvement of a practitioner (’062 Patent, col. 3:30-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a networked system that connects a patient at a "customer diagnostic center" with a remote eye care practitioner (’062 Patent, Abstract). The diagnostic center contains ophthalmic equipment to conduct tests; a server then transmits the resulting examination data to a practitioner's device for review and evaluation (’062 Patent, col. 8:37-44). The practitioner generates an eye health report or prescription, which is then provided back to the customer via the network, thereby facilitating a comprehensive exam without the practitioner being physically present (’062 Patent, col. 4:15-35).
  • Technical Importance: This system architecture sought to reduce barriers to comprehensive eye care by centralizing practitioner expertise and distributing points of patient access, making examinations more convenient and affordable (’062 Patent, col. 7:10-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14, 15, and 17 (Compl. ¶200).
  • Independent Claim 13 is directed to a server and recites the following essential elements:
    • Permitting eye-care practitioners to log into a web-based platform to administer eye examinations in real-time.
    • Tracking availability data indicating which practitioners are logged in and whether they are currently engaged in an examination.
    • Receiving a request from a diagnostic center to select a practitioner.
    • Selecting a practitioner based on an analysis of the availability data.
    • Administering tests to the customer, including an objective portion and a subjective portion that uses a defined iterative process based on the objective results and customer responses.
    • Receiving customer examination data from the diagnostic center and transmitting it to a practitioner device.
    • Receiving customer evaluation data from the practitioner device.
    • Providing an eye health report, based on the practitioner's evaluation, to the customer.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Accused Systems," which are Defendants' "telemedicine-based systems for providing vision and eye examinations, including, without limitation, My Refractive Services" (Compl. ¶98). These systems are allegedly used and offered through Defendants' "Stanton Optical" and "MyEyeLab" retail stores and franchises (Compl. ¶¶5, 92-95).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Systems enable "telemedicine-based eye exams" that remove the "need for on-site doctors" (Compl. ¶92). The alleged functionality mirrors the patented system, comprising diagnostic centers at retail stores with ophthalmic equipment, a central server, and devices used by remotely-located practitioners (Compl. ¶¶99-101). The system allegedly allows practitioners to log in to an online portal, be selected based on availability, remotely administer objective and subjective tests, and generate prescriptions and reports for customers (Compl. ¶¶102-105).
  • Defendants are alleged to market these systems as a "strategic franchise program" that reduces the barrier to entry into the optical retail industry (Compl. ¶93).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Systems infringe because they were copied from Plaintiff's technology and perform the same functions recited in the claims (Compl. ¶¶202, 204). The core allegations for the asserted independent claim are summarized below.
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A server for providing services related to eye health and vision examinations... The Accused Systems include "a server for providing services related to eye health and vision examinations." ¶206 col. 51:18-23
permit eye-care practitioners to login to a web-based platform to administer eye examinations... over a network in real-time... The server of the Accused Systems is configured to "permit eye-care practitioners to login to a web-based platform to administer eye examinations to customers over a network in real-time." ¶207 col. 48:47-52
track availability data associated with the eye-care practitioners, which indicates which eye-care practitioners are logged into the platform and/or are providing eye examinations through the platform... The server also tracks availability data indicating which practitioners are logged into the platform. ¶207 col. 48:53-59
receive a request to select an eye-care practitioner from a diagnostic center that includes ophthalmic equipment... The server is configured to "receive a request" to select a practitioner from a "diagnostic center" (e.g., a retail store) with ophthalmic equipment. ¶208 col. 51:29-34
select the eye-care practitioner... based on availability data to identify eye-care practitioners who are logged-on and not performing eye examinations... The server is configured to "select the eye-care practitioner... based on 'availability data' to identify eye-care practitioners who are logged-on and not performing eye examinations." ¶209 col. 51:35-44
administer one or more tests... including an objective portion... and a subjective portion that utilizes an iterative process... The server administers objective tests (e.g., from auto-refractors) and subjective tests using an "interactive process" based on the results of the objective tests and customer responses. ¶¶210-211 col. 51:45-67
receive customer examination data... and transmit... data to a practitioner device... The server is configured to "receive customer examination data generated by the ophthalmic equipment" and "transmit at least a portion" of this data to a "practitioner device." ¶212 col. 52:13-18
receive customer evaluation data from the practitioner and generate an eye-health report... The server is configured to "receive customer evaluation data from the practitioner" and generate an eye-health report based on the practitioner's review. ¶213 col. 52:19-23

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language very closely, suggesting a theory of literal infringement. A central dispute may be whether the specific components of the Accused Systems fall within the scope of the claim terms. For example, does the Defendants' practitioner selection mechanism use "availability data" as specifically defined in the patent (’062 Patent, col. 48:53-59), or does it use a different metric?
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence supports the assertion that the Defendants' system, which they allegedly developed independently (Compl. ¶75), performs each step of the claimed methods. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the subjective portion of the Accused System's exam is an "iterative process" that meets all the sub-limitations required by claim 13, including selecting questions based on both objective measurements and prior responses?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "availability data"

  • Context and Importance: The selection of a practitioner is based on this data. The claim itself provides a functional definition: data "indicating a set of eye-care practitioners who are currently logged into the web-based platform and whether each such eye-care practitioner is currently engaged in providing a real-time eye examination" (’062 Patent, col. 48:53-59). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the Accused System tracks and uses this specific type of real-time status information or a different form of scheduling or availability.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses other types of data related to availability, such as "scheduling data indicating days and hours that the eye-care practitioners are available" (’062 Patent, col. 15:38-41) and "workload data" for practitioners (Compl. ¶17:25-30), which a party could argue informs a broader context for the term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, defining "availability data" by what it indicates (real-time login and engagement status). A party could argue this serves as its own definition, limiting the term strictly to the functions described within the claim itself.

The Term: "web-based platform"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the environment where practitioners interact with the system. Its construction is critical because it could determine whether any system accessible via the internet infringes, or only those with specific real-time, interactive capabilities.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term in a general sense, for example, stating that the system may be provided by a "centralized cloud-based system" that is "accessible via a web browser" (’062 Patent, col. 18:12-16). This may support an interpretation covering a wide range of online portals.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the platform to allow practitioners "to administer the eye examinations... in real-time" (’062 Patent, col. 48:49-52). A party could argue this functional requirement narrows the term to platforms with specific, synchronous control and communication capabilities, not just any website where data can be viewed.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants sell and provide the Accused Systems and processes to their franchisees, who then use the systems to perform infringing examinations (Compl. ¶200). These allegations may support a claim for induced infringement by asserting that Defendants actively encourage and supply the means for their franchisees to directly infringe.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges a basis for willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It alleges that Defendants knew of Plaintiff's technology through a prior licensing relationship that began in 2015 (Compl. ¶109). It further alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with "actual knowledge of the Asserted Patent" and their infringement via a letter sent around March 30, 2017, more than a year before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶110, 220).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint's infringement allegations closely mirror the patent's claim language. The case will likely depend on whether discovery produces technical evidence demonstrating that the Accused System—which Defendants claim was developed independently—actually performs each specific function recited in the asserted claims.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: The dispute may turn on the construction of terms like "availability data." The core question for the court will be whether the specific, multi-part definition of this term in the claim can be read to cover the method by which the Accused System assigns practitioners, or if there is a technical distinction that avoids infringement.
  • A pervasive theme will be the narrative of prior dealings: The history of a failed licensing agreement followed by the launch of a competing product will likely frame the dispute. This context, while separate from the technical infringement analysis, raises a central question about the origin of Defendants' technology and will be critical to the allegations of willfulness and the calculation of potential damages.