DCT
2:22-cv-00146
Decapolis Systems LLC v. Tenet Healthcare Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Decapolis Systems, LLC (Florida)
- Defendants: MedSys Group, LLC (Texas); Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Nevada); Universal Health Services, Inc. (Delaware); Tyler Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00146, E.D. Tex., 05/12/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established business presences, including physical locations and employees, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ electronic healthcare systems, platforms, and services, which are based on Cerner Corporation’s technology, infringe patents related to processing healthcare information and managing access to patient records.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves centralized electronic health record (EHR) systems designed to improve healthcare data management, streamline insurance billing, and enhance patient data security.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit are expired but that Plaintiff is entitled to seek damages for past infringement within the six-year statutory limitation period. The complaint also notes that the patents have been cited by numerous technology and healthcare companies, which Plaintiff presents as evidence of their pioneering nature.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-18 | Priority Date for ’040 Patent |
| 2001-04-25 | Priority Date for ’048 Patent |
| 2008-12-09 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 |
| 2009-02-10 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 |
| 2012-01-01 | Tenet and UHS EHR implementations mentioned (approximate) |
| 2018-10-03 | MedSys Group announces it is joining Cerner |
| 2020-09-01 | Tyler Technologies and Cerner press release |
| 2022-05-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 - Apparatus and Method for Processing and/or for Providing Healthcare Information and/or Healthcare-Related Information
- Issued: February 10, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes problems in maintaining the privacy of patient healthcare records, safeguarding them from unauthorized access or changes, and enabling patients to restrict access ('048 Patent, col. 2:20-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method for managing access to a patient's electronic healthcare record. The system processes a request to access or modify the record and generates a notification message detailing the request and any actual change made. Crucially, this message is transmitted to the patient's personal communication device "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, or prior to a completion of" the access or modification event, providing near real-time alerts of activity related to their health information ('048 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This method directly addresses patient privacy concerns in the digital age by providing a mechanism for immediate patient notification, creating an audit trail that is visible to the patient and potentially deterring unauthorized access.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claims 1, 2, 10, and 20-40, with Claim 20 identified as exemplary (Compl. ¶43). Claim 20 is an independent method claim.
- Essential elements of Claim 20 include:
- Receiving and storing information regarding a "restriction or limitation" on the ability of a person or entity to access or modify a patient's healthcare record.
- Processing a request from a person or entity to access or modify the record.
- Determining, based on the stored restriction, whether the requesting person or entity is authorized.
- Generating a message that identifies the requesting party and describes the "actual change, alteration, or modification" made to the record.
- Transmitting that message to a "communication device of the individual or patient" over a network.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶43).
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 - Apparatus and Method for Processing and/or for Providing Healthcare Information and/or Healthcare-Related Information
- Issued: December 9, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies significant problems in the healthcare system stemming from fragmented, inaccurate, and outdated patient information, which can lead to medical errors. It also highlights the inefficiency and high cost of traditional, paper-based insurance claims processing ('040 Patent, col. 1:43-67; col. 2:4-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system that integrates clinical documentation with billing. A healthcare provider transmits patient information (e.g., diagnosis, treatment) to a central computer, which updates the patient's electronic record. In direct response to this update, a processing device "automatically generates an insurance claim" and transmits it to the appropriate insurer's computer system ('040 Patent, Abstract). This creates a direct, automated link between the clinical event and the financial transaction.
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve efficiency and reduce administrative errors in healthcare by automating the creation of insurance claims directly from clinical data entry, thereby streamlining the revenue cycle.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claims 1 and 46 (Compl. ¶63). Both are independent claims.
- Essential elements of Claim 1 (apparatus) include:
- A receiver for obtaining patient information (symptom, diagnosis, treatment, etc.) from a healthcare provider's computer over a network like the Internet.
- A database for storing records for multiple individuals, providers, and insurers.
- A processing device that stores the received information and updates the patient's healthcare record.
- The processing device "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information... or the updating of the healthcare record."
- The processing device transmits the generated insurance claim to a second computer associated with the healthcare insurer or payer.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as a "plurality of electronic healthcare systems, platforms and services, including but not limited to Cerner Corporation's cloud-based electronic health records ('EHR') and practice management system and software" (Compl. ¶¶34, 35, 36, 37, 38).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused systems provide a comprehensive "cloud database and framework" for managing all aspects of patient care and healthcare administration, including receiving and sending data, managing patient care, scheduling, billing, accounting, and revenue management (Compl. ¶¶34, 35, 36, 37). The complaint includes several screenshots to establish that each Defendant uses, sells, or otherwise provides services based on Cerner's EHR platform. For example, a screenshot of a healthcare media webpage describes Tenet Healthcare's 2012 implementation of the Cerner EHR system across dozens of its hospitals (Compl. ¶35, Fig. 3). Another screenshot from the same source describes a similar implementation by Universal Health Services (Compl. ¶36, Fig. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
7,490,048 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving information regarding a restriction or limitation regarding an ability of a person or an entity to at least one of access, obtain, change, alter, and modify, information contained in an individuals or patients healthcare record... and storing the information... | The accused systems allegedly receive and store rules that restrict or limit how certain persons or entities can access, obtain, or modify information in a patient's electronic healthcare file (Compl. ¶¶47, 48). | ¶47, ¶48 | col. 33:17-29 |
| processing, with a processor, a request by a person or an entity to at least one of access, obtain, change, alter, and modify, the information contained in an individuals or patient's healthcare record... | The accused systems allegedly use a processor to handle requests from users (such as providers or payers) to access or modify information contained within a patient's healthcare record (Compl. ¶48). | ¶48 | col. 33:1-11 |
| determining, using the information regarding the restriction or limitation, whether the person or the entity is allowed or authorized to at least one of access... | The accused systems allegedly use the stored restriction information to determine if a requesting user is authorized to perform the requested action on the patient's record (Compl. ¶48). | ¶48 | col. 33:12-16 |
| generating a message containing at least one of information regarding the person or the entity making the request...and further wherein the message contains an actual change, alteration, or modification, made to the information... | The accused systems allegedly generate a message that includes information identifying the user who made the request and details the specific change, alteration, or modification that was made to the patient's record (Compl. ¶48). | ¶48 | col. 33:30-47 |
| transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient via, on, or over, a communication network. | The accused systems allegedly transmit this generated message over a network to a communication device belonging to the patient, with the complaint further alleging this occurs "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of" the access or processing of the request (Compl. ¶¶48, 49). A screenshot of a press release about Tyler Technologies and Cerner supporting Medicaid reporting suggests a system that manages and reports on patient data, which is the context for such access controls (Compl. ¶37, Fig. 5). | ¶48, ¶49 | col. 33:48-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused EHR systems actually perform the step of "transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient." Many EHR systems have internal audit logs to track access, but a system that sends near real-time notifications directly to a patient's personal device may be a distinct feature. The complaint's allegations track the claim language but do not provide specific evidence of this patient-facing notification functionality.
- Scope Questions: The temporal requirement that the message be sent "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of" the access will be a key point of dispute (Compl. ¶49). This language suggests an immediate, real-time notification, which raises the question of whether a batch-processed daily summary or a patient portal update that is not actively "pushed" to a device would meet this limitation.
7,464,040 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver... receives information regarding an individual... transmitted from a first computer... associated with a healthcare provider... | The accused systems allegedly receive clinical and diagnostic information (symptoms, findings, diagnosis, treatment) about a patient, transmitted over a network from a computer used by a healthcare provider (Compl. ¶65). | ¶65 | col. 27:35-46 |
| a database or a memory device... stores information regarding a plurality of individuals, a plurality of healthcare providers, and a plurality of healthcare insurers or healthcare payers. | The accused systems allegedly utilize a database that stores comprehensive information for numerous patients, providers, and payers/insurers (Compl. ¶65). The complaint's screenshot regarding MedSys Group joining Cerner to modernize the VA's EHR supports the allegation of a large-scale, multi-party database (Compl. ¶34, Fig. 1). | ¶65 | col. 27:51-60 |
| a processing device... processes the information regarding an individual... for at least one of storing the information... and updating the healthcare record... of, for, or associated with, the individual... | The accused systems allegedly include a processing device that takes the received clinical information and uses it to store new data or update the existing electronic healthcare record associated with the patient (Compl. ¶67). | ¶67 | col. 28:5-10 |
| and further wherein the processing device automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information regarding an individual in the database... or the updating of the healthcare record... | The accused systems' processing device allegedly "automatically generates an insurance claim" as a direct result of the clinical information being stored or the record being updated (Compl. ¶67). | ¶67 | col. 28:10-21 |
| and further wherein the processing device transmits the insurance claim to the second computer or to the second communication device... associated with the healthcare insurer or the healthcare payer... | The accused systems' processing device allegedly transmits the automatically generated insurance claim to a computer system associated with the relevant insurer or payer (Compl. ¶67). | ¶67 | col. 28:25-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The central dispute will likely focus on the "automatically generates an insurance claim" limitation. The key question is whether the accused Cerner EHR system performs this step without substantive human intervention from a billing or coding professional. Many EHR systems require a multi-step process where a coder reviews a physician's note, assigns billing codes, and then initiates the creation of a claim. The complaint does not provide evidence to distinguish the accused functionality from such a conventional workflow.
- Scope Questions: The term "in response to" will likely be contested. Does this require immediate, programmatic generation triggered by the save event of a clinical record, or could it be construed more broadly to cover a process where a billing module later uses the saved clinical data to generate a claim with a few clicks from a user?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information... or the updating of the healthcare record" (’040 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase is the technical core of the ’040 Patent's asserted claims, defining the automated link between clinical documentation and billing. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused systems' functionality, which may involve human-in-the-loop review by billing staff, falls within the scope of "automatically generates."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "automatically" means the system populates the claim form with data from the clinical record without requiring manual re-entry, even if a human initiates the process. The specification describes a broad "comprehensive healthcare processing system" that "facilitates" various processes, which may suggest a less-than-fully-automated system is contemplated ('040 Patent, col. 2:42-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states the insurance claim "is automatically generated... in response to the storing of the information or the updating of the healthcare record," which suggests a direct, triggered event without an intervening manual step. This language supports an interpretation that the saving of the clinical record itself is the trigger for the claim generation, without further human input.
- The Term: "transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient" (’048 Patent, Claim 20)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the recipient of the notification. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused systems send notifications to patients themselves, or merely to internal system administrators via audit logs. Practitioners may focus on this term because a standard audit log function would likely not meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of arguments for a broader interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's focus on solving problems related to "enabling patients and individuals to restrict and/or limit access to their healthcare records or files" strongly suggests that the "individual or patient" is the intended recipient ('048 Patent, col. 2:25-29). The claim's use of "communication device of the individual or patient" points specifically to a device controlled by the patient, not an internal system component.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendants advertised infringing uses and knew or should have known their actions would induce infringement by others (e.g., healthcare providers using the systems) (Compl. ¶¶51-54, 70-73).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge obtained from the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶50, 69). It further alleges that Defendants are "willfully blind" to patent rights by having a practice of not reviewing patents before launching products (Compl. ¶¶55, 74).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Cerner EHR platform actually transmit near real-time notifications to a patient's personal device whenever their electronic health record is accessed or modified, as required by the ’048 patent, or is this specific patient-facing functionality absent from the accused systems?
- A key issue of claim scope will concern the term "automatically generates" in the ’040 patent. The case will likely turn on whether this term requires a fully automated, programmatic link between a clinical record update and the creation of an insurance claim, or if it can be construed to cover systems that streamline the process but still require substantive review and initiation by human billing personnel.
- The analysis will also involve a significant question of technical implementation: what is the precise workflow in the accused systems for creating an insurance claim from a clinical encounter note? The degree of separation and the nature of any human intervention between the clinical documentation and revenue cycle modules will be critical facts in determining infringement of the ’040 patent.