DCT
3:18-cv-00250
University Of South Florida Research Foundation Inc v. Brit Systems Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: University of South Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: BRIT Systems, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00250, M.D. Fla., 11/03/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida based on general venue statutes and the patent-specific venue statute, noting that Defendant's sales representatives sell or offer for sale one or more of the accused systems within the jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s picture archiving and communication system (PACS) products, used for medical imaging, infringe a patent related to a workstation interface for displaying and manipulating digital mammograms.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns graphical user interfaces for medical professionals, enabling the high-speed display and analysis of large, high-resolution digital medical images to improve diagnostic workflow and accuracy.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent inventors assigned their rights to the University of South Florida, which in turn assigned them to the Plaintiff, University of South Florida Research Foundation, Inc. The patent itself indicates it was developed in part with U.S. government support.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-02-20 | ’937 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application) |
| 2002-02-22 | ’937 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2003-10-07 | ’937 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-11-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,630,937 - "Workstation Interface for Use in Digital Mammography and Associated Methods," issued October 7, 2003.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating effective digital workstations for primary diagnosis using high-resolution mammograms. At the time of the invention, the patent asserts that existing commercial systems were often inadequate for this purpose, being used more for lower-resolution images or adjunctive tasks like biopsy reporting, which created a barrier to the adoption of digital mammography (’937 Patent, col. 1:44-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a workstation interface system designed to replicate and improve upon the traditional film-based reading process for radiologists. It provides a software and hardware framework for displaying multiple, large digital mammogram images simultaneously, allowing for real-time manipulation through features like panning, zooming, and grayscale adjustment. The system is designed to be intuitive, presenting different views and resolutions of an image (e.g., a full overview and a high-resolution detail view) to facilitate a comprehensive examination (’937 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-30).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make the transition from film to digital diagnosis smoother for clinicians by providing a digital tool that was "comparable to the existing standard reading procedure" in speed and layout (’937 Patent, col. 2:65–col. 3:1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, 3, and 17.
- Independent Claim 1, a system claim, recites the following essential elements:
- A processor with means for communicating with a user, a display monitor, and a means for receiving digitized mammogram data.
- Electronically implementable means within the processor for:
- transforming the mammogram data into a "plurality of varying-resolution forms."
- displaying these forms in different windows on the monitor.
- receiving user control instructions to change the "illumination state" of a displayed form.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 13-15, which add limitations related to real-time grayscale adjustment (’937 Patent, col. 10:35-42; Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant BRIT’s "picture archiving and communication system ('PACS') products," including the "Brit PACS View," and specific mammography systems such as the "Vision Mammography Module, Mammography Module, and Mammo Module Viewer" (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are software systems that "provide interfaces between a medical image and a user" (Compl. ¶10). Their accused functionality includes accessing, displaying, and controlling stored digital medical images. Specifically, the complaint alleges the products "enable display and control over the grayscale rendition and illumination state of medical images of varying resolution in different spatial configurations," which mirrors the functional language of the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the narrative allegations.
’937 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor for electronically communicating with a user and display monitor, and for receiving digitized mammogram data having grayscale values... | Defendant's products allegedly include a processor that communicates with a user and monitor and receives mammogram data. | ¶17 | col. 9:56-64 |
| electronically implementable means in the processor for transforming the digitized data into forms having different grayscale values and for displaying those forms on a monitor | Defendant's products allegedly contain software that enables the display of medical images of "varying resolution in different spatial configurations." | ¶18 | col. 10:1-8 |
| means for receiving control instructions from the user for changing and controlling the illumination state of the displayed forms | Defendant's products allegedly allow a user to control the "grayscale rendition and illumination state" of the displayed images. | ¶19 | col. 10:9-14 |
The complaint includes a figure from the patent, FIG. 4, illustrating a graphical user interface with multiple image panes and controls for adjusting grayscale values (Compl. p. 3).
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 uses "means-plus-function" language (e.g., "means for transforming"). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the scope of these terms is limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. A central dispute may be whether the software architecture of Defendant's modern PACS products is equivalent to the specific Sun SPARCstation, Solaris OS, and Motif toolkit implementation detailed in the patent (’937 Patent, col. 3:30-48).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory, stating that the functionality of the accused products "corresponds to" the claim language (Compl. ¶¶16-19). A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the specific functions recited, such as creating and displaying a "plurality of varying-resolution forms" simultaneously in the manner described in the patent (e.g., a decimated overview with a high-resolution inset) (’937 Patent, col. 5:21-28).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "means for transforming the digitized mammogram data into a plurality of varying-resolution forms"
Context and Importance: This means-plus-function term from Claim 1 is central to the infringement analysis. The outcome will depend on first identifying the corresponding algorithm or structure in the patent and then determining if the accused products use an equivalent structure to achieve the identical function.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the corresponding structure is a general-purpose processor programmed with software to perform the transformation, as the patent refers to "software means" that are "loadable into the processor" (’937 Patent, col. 2:23-30).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of creating "decimated views" (lower resolution) of the original images for an overview display, while showing selected sections at full "high resolution" from the original data (’937 Patent, col. 5:21-28). A party could argue the claim is limited to this specific method of creating and presenting multiple resolutions and its equivalents.
The Term: "illumination state"
Context and Importance: This term in Claim 1 is allegedly met by the accused products' ability to control "grayscale rendition and illumination state" (Compl. ¶¶10, 19). Its definition will determine whether standard image processing features like brightness/contrast controls fall within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue for its plain meaning, encompassing any adjustment to the visual presentation of the image on a monitor, including grayscale, brightness, and contrast.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific controls for "window width," "level," and "gamma value" to adjust the image (’937 Patent, col. 6:38-44). A party might argue the term is limited to this particular combination of adjustments. It could also be argued to relate to the hardware "predetermined illumination capability" of the specialized high-luminance monitors discussed in the patent's preferred embodiment (’937 Patent, col. 4:10-24).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support either induced or contributory infringement. While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin such acts, the substantive counts focus on direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶15-43; Prayer for Relief ¶(a)).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. It does, however, request a finding that the case is "exceptional" to justify an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶(d)). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge on the part of the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: for the "means-plus-function" claims to be infringed, the court must determine if the accused software architecture in BRIT's modern PACS products is legally equivalent to the specific, circa-2002 Sun/UNIX-based computer system disclosed in the '937 patent's specification.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: the complaint's allegations are high-level. The case will likely depend on whether the Plaintiff can produce technical evidence to prove that the accused products perform the specific, multi-step workflow described in the patent—such as simultaneously displaying decimated overviews alongside user-selected high-resolution insets—or if their operational method is fundamentally different.