DCT

1:12-cv-06075

NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:12-cv-06075, N.D. Ill., 08/01/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' advertising, marketing, using, and selling products within the district, and on Defendant Brainlab, Inc. having its principal place of business in Westchester, Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ medical imaging software systems, used for Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) and tractography, infringe a patent related to methods for imaging nerve tissue using magnetic resonance.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) techniques that exploit the anisotropic diffusion of water in nerve fibers to create detailed, high-contrast images of neural pathways for diagnostic and surgical planning purposes.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, through one of the patent's inventors, provided Defendants with notice of the patent and offered to discuss a license in May 2009, an offer which Defendants allegedly declined.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1992-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360 Priority Date
1996-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360 Issues
1998-12-DD Exclusive License granted to NeuroGrafix
2009-05-DD Defendants allegedly became aware of the patent
2012-08-01 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360, "Image Neurography and Diffusion Anisotropy Imaging," issued October 1, 1996. (’360 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background explains that prior imaging methods, including conventional MRI, were unsuccessful in generating suitable clinical images of peripheral nerves due to their small size, complex pathways, and proximity to other tissues, making diagnosis and surgical planning difficult (’360 Patent, col. 1:29-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method of using a modified MRI system to generate high-contrast images of neural tissue. The core of the solution is to apply a pair of magnetic field gradient pulses, referred to as diffusion gradients, which are oriented to exploit the "anisotropic" nature of water diffusion in nerves—water diffuses more freely along nerve fibers than across them. This technique enhances the signal from nerve tissue while suppressing signals from surrounding tissues where water diffusion is more random, resulting in a "nerve only" image. (’360 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:12-34).
  • Technical Importance: The patented method provides a non-invasive way to visualize an individual's nerve pathways, which was previously unavailable, thereby improving the ability to diagnose neural disorders and to inform and control the administration of treatments and therapy (’360 Patent, col. 6:11-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 36 of the ’360 Patent (Compl. ¶17).
  • Independent Claim 36 includes the following essential elements:
    • A method for determining data representative of anisotropic diffusion in a selected structure.
    • Exposing a region containing the structure to a magnetic polarizing field with a "predetermined arrangement of diffusion-weighted gradients."
    • Exposing the region to an electromagnetic excitation field.
    • Sensing a resonant response and producing an output.
    • Processing the output to generate data representative of the anisotropic diffusion, which distinguishes the selected structure from other structures not exhibiting diffusion anisotropy.
  • The complaint's phrasing "at least claim 36" suggests the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims, may be reserved (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names "Defendants' Brainsuite iMRI and related software, such as iPlan Fibertracking software" as the primary accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶17). It also lists "BOLD MRI Mapping software, iPlan RT, iPlan Flow, iPlan Neuroradiology, and courses taught at the Defendants' Academy" (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products and services are used for the "performance of and provision of equipment and methods for DTI and diffusion anisotropy based tractography" (Compl. ¶17). These tools are allegedly used by direct infringers such as hospitals and radiologists to visualize neural pathways (Compl. ¶18). The complaint provides URLs to Defendants' website describing "fibertracking-and-functional-software" and "intra-operative-mri" to support these allegations (Compl. ¶15, 18, 19).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'360 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 36) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) exposing a region of a subject to a magnetic polarizing field including a predetermined arrangement of diffusion-weighted gradients, the region including a selected structure that exhibits diffusion anisotropy... The accused products are alleged to perform "DTI and diffusion anisotropy based tractography," a process that requires applying diffusion-weighted gradients using an MRI scanner to a subject. ¶17 col. 17:25-34
(b) exposing the region to an electromagnetic excitation field; The performance of DTI, which the accused products allegedly enable, is an MRI-based method that inherently includes the step of applying an electromagnetic (RF) excitation field. ¶17 col. 13:54-58
(c) sensing a resonant response of the region to the polarizing and excitation fields and the diffusion-weighted gradients and producing an output indicative of the resonant response; and The accused software is alleged to be used with MRI systems that necessarily sense the resonant response from the subject's tissue to generate the raw data that the software processes. ¶17 col. 13:62-66
(d) processing said output to generate data representative of anisotropic diffusion of said selected structure in the region, said data set distinguishing said selected structure from said other structures... The "iPlan Fibertracking software" is alleged to process the MRI output data to perform "tractography," which by definition generates a data set representing and distinguishing nerve tracts based on their anisotropic diffusion properties. ¶17 col. 18:24-57
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The complaint does not specify the algorithms used by the accused "iPlan Fibertracking software." A central question for the court will be whether the specific processing steps performed by the accused software meet the "processing" limitation of claim 36(d) as construed. The patent specification describes particular techniques like "Subtraction Neurography" (’360 Patent, col. 18:35) and "Vector Processing" (’360 Patent, col. 19:29). The degree of overlap between the accused software's methods and these disclosed techniques will be a key factual dispute.
    • Scope Questions: Claim 36 is a method claim. The complaint alleges direct infringement by Brainlab, which primarily sells software, raising the question of whether Brainlab itself performs all steps of the claimed method. The case may therefore depend heavily on the indirect infringement claims, which would require proof that Brainlab's customers directly infringe and that Brainlab possessed the requisite knowledge and intent to induce or contribute to that infringement (Compl. ¶18-19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "predetermined arrangement of diffusion-weighted gradients"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of claim 36(a). The dispute will likely center on whether this term covers any set of gradients used to measure diffusion anisotropy, or if it is limited to more specific arrangements disclosed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either encompass most modern DTI techniques or narrow the claim to older, more specific methods.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "arrangement," suggesting flexibility. The specification discloses multiple arrangements, including a vector analysis approach using "three standard orthogonal axes" (’360 Patent, col. 20:25-34), which may support a construction not limited to a single specific embodiment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent places significant emphasis on an embodiment where gradients are applied "approximately perpendicular and parallel to the axis of the peripheral nerve" and then subtracted to produce a "nerve only" image (’360 Patent, col. 16:50-55). A party could argue that this disclosed subtraction-based arrangement is a defining feature of the invention that should limit the claim's scope.

  • The Term: "processing said output to generate data representative of anisotropic diffusion"

  • Context and Importance: This term from claim 36(d) is the functional heart of the claim. Its construction will determine what types of software algorithms fall within the claim's scope. A key question is whether any software that generates a fiber tract map from diffusion data infringes, or if the "processing" must align with specific computational methods disclosed in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, focusing on the result ("generate data representative of") rather than the specific means. The patent’s abstract describes the invention in high-level functional terms as a system that "selectively images neural tissue" by "discriminat[ing] diffusion anisotropy" (’360 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific mathematical and procedural approaches for this processing, including vector equations to calculate "vector length" and diffusion angles, and a "subtraction neurogram" process (’360 Patent, col. 18:35-57; col. 20:47-67). A defendant may argue these specific disclosures define and limit the scope of the "processing" step.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It alleges inducement is accomplished through materials such as "courses taught at the Defendants' Academy" that encourage customers to use the accused products to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶18). For contributory infringement, it alleges the software is a "material part of the invention," is "especially made or especially adapted" for infringement, and is not a "staple article of commerce" (Compl. ¶19).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on Defendants' alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the ’360 Patent in May 2009 (Compl. ¶15, 20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the method steps of Claim 36, particularly the "predetermined arrangement of... gradients" and the "processing" of the output, be construed broadly enough to cover the algorithms used in Defendants’ modern tractography software, or will the court limit the claim to the specific subtraction and vector-analysis embodiments detailed in the patent’s specification?
  • A second key question will be one of liability for infringement: as Brainlab is primarily a software provider, the case may turn on whether Plaintiffs can prove that Brainlab's customers directly perform every step of the asserted method claim and, crucially, that Brainlab knowingly and intentionally induced or contributed to that infringement after receiving notice of the patent.
  • Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: the complaint lacks specific details about how the accused software functions. Discovery will be essential to reveal the actual algorithms and processing steps implemented in the "iPlan Fibertracking software" to determine if they in fact perform the functions required by the asserted claim as it is ultimately construed by the court.