Drug Information Retrieval System v. Myrxpprofile

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Drug Information Retrieval System, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: MyRxProfile, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. KRIEGEL, LLC
• Case Identification: 3:20-cv-05607, D.N.J., 05/06/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant is headquartered and/or has its primary place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s methods and systems for retrieving drug interaction information infringe a patent related to computer-based drug identification and interaction analysis.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for automated systems to identify multiple medications and check for potential adverse interactions, a critical patient safety issue in both clinical and consumer settings.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff. No other significant procedural history, such as prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history, is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-08-14	’887 Patent Priority Date
2012-04-10	’887 Patent Issue Date
2020-05-06	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,155,887 - Computer Visualized Drug Interaction Information Retrieval, issued April 10, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of avoiding harmful drug interactions when a patient consumes multiple substances. The background notes that manually consulting the "voluminous books" that aggregate known drug interactions is often impractical in a dispensary setting, creating a risk of undesirable outcomes. (’887 Patent, col. 1:21-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computerized method and system to automate this process. The system works by first acquiring an image of each drug to capture an "external characteristic," such as a pill marking or code. This visual information is then used to identify each drug, typically by comparing it to a database. Once the drugs are identified, the system retrieves known interaction data for the specific combination of drugs and displays a report of any potential interactions. (’887 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-37; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This automated approach allows for the rapid determination of potential drug-drug interactions, a process which, if done manually, would be a "tedious manual process" prone to error. (’887 Patent, col. 2:3-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1. (Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • acquiring, for each of multiple different substances, imagery of at least one external characteristic of a physical body of the substance;
  • determining an identity of each of the multiple different substances based upon the at least one external characteristic from the acquired imagery;
  • retrieving drug interaction data for each of the multiple different substances using the determined identities;
  • correlating, using a processor, drug interaction data for at least one of the multiple different substances with at least one other of the multiple different substances; and
  • displaying the correlated drug interaction data.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "the claims of the ’887 patent" generally, but its specific allegations are directed to Claim 1. (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, system, or service by name. It refers generally to Defendant’s "methods and/or systems and/or products" that allegedly employ the patented method. (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the functionality or operation of the accused instrumentality. It alleges infringement through a conclusory statement that "Defendant employs the method covered by Claim 1 of the ’887 patent" and references an "infringement analysis at Exhibit B," which was not included with the public filing. (Compl. ¶10). No allegations are made regarding the accused instrumentality's commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide sufficient factual detail to construct one. It asserts that an infringement analysis is contained in a non-provided "Exhibit B." (Compl. ¶10). The infringement theory, as summarized in the complaint, is that Defendant's unidentified methods and systems practice all the steps of Claim 1 of the ’887 patent, including acquiring imagery of substances, determining their identity from that imagery, retrieving and correlating interaction data, and displaying the results. (Compl. ¶¶9-10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent language and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several questions.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the phrase "imagery of at least one external characteristic of a physical body of the substance," as used in the patent, can be read to cover methods that do not involve direct imaging of a pill itself, such as scanning a barcode or QR code on a prescription bottle. The patent’s specification repeatedly gives examples like a "pill marking or code" as the identifying content. (’887 Patent, col. 3:25-26).
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be what proof exists that the accused system "determin[es] an identity... based upon the at least one external characteristic from the acquired imagery" as required by the claim. The nature of this link between the image and the identification will be critical, and the complaint provides no facts on how the accused system allegedly performs this function. (Compl. ¶9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "acquiring... imagery of at least one external characteristic of a physical body of the substance"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the initial input and scope of the claimed method. Its construction will determine what types of identification technologies fall within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is a primary determinant of the patent's applicability to modern pharmacy and health applications, which may use various identification methods.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "external characteristic" is not explicitly limited and could be argued to encompass any visually perceptible feature on or associated with the substance's container. (’887 Patent, col. 6:39-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples that suggest a narrower meaning, focusing on features of the drug itself, such as "identifying content disposed on each of the different substances such as a pill marking or code." (’887 Patent, col. 3:23-26).

• The Term: "determining an identity... based upon the at least one external characteristic"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it connects the acquired image to the ultimate identification of the drug. The dispute may turn on whether "based upon" requires the characteristic in the image to be the sole or primary basis for identification, or if it can merely be a trigger for another lookup process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "based upon" does not, on its face, preclude the use of other data in the determination process, so long as the characteristic from the image is an input. (’887 Patent, col. 6:43-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains this step as comparing "the identified content to a data store of known substances," which suggests a direct lookup using the visual feature itself, rather than a more attenuated process. (’887 Patent, col. 3:26-29).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It claims Defendant acted with "full knowledge of the ’887 patent and the specific intent that its acts and the acts of its customers" would constitute infringement, and that Defendant "specifically intended for its customers to infringe" by using the accused systems. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "deliberate and willful, at least since Defendant first learned about the ’887 patent." (Compl. ¶14). It does not specify when or how this alleged knowledge was acquired.

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

• A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "imagery of at least one external characteristic of a physical body of the substance," which the patent specification ties to visual "pill markings," be construed to cover other identification methods potentially used by modern health applications, such as scanning a barcode on a prescription bottle?
• A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to show that the accused system performs each claimed step. Given the complaint's reliance on a non-provided exhibit, the factual basis for how Defendant's system allegedly "determin[es] an identity... based upon" the acquired imagery will be a critical point of proof.