DCT
3:18-cv-00250
University Of South Florida Research Foundation Inc v. Brit Systems Inc
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; Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A.
- Case Identification: 8:16-cv-03109, M.D. Fla., 07/18/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has also waived its right to challenge venue.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) products for medical imaging infringe a patent related to a workstation interface for displaying and analyzing digital mammograms.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns graphical user interfaces for medical professionals, specifically designed to improve the efficiency and diagnostic accuracy of reviewing high-resolution digital mammography images.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not explicitly allege willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-10-30 | '937 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-10-07 | '937 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-07-18 | Amended 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 describes the challenge of effectively displaying full, high-resolution digital mammograms for primary diagnosis, noting that existing commercial workstations were inadequate and that differences between digital monitor and traditional film viewbox reading could introduce diagnostic biases (’937 Patent, col. 1:42-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a workstation interface system designed to be intuitive for radiologists. It receives digitized image data and uses software to transform the image into multiple "varying-resolution forms" (e.g., a lower-resolution overview and a high-resolution detail view) that can be displayed simultaneously in different sectors of one or more monitors, allowing the user to control aspects like grayscale and zoom (’937 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-30). The system is designed to handle large images at high speeds to be comparable to standard film reading procedures (’937 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The described interface aimed to bridge the gap between traditional film-based mammography review and the then-emerging digital platforms by providing a flexible, high-performance digital environment that mimicked some aspects of the established clinical workflow (’937 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, 3, and 17.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system for interfacing a digitized mammogram and a user, comprising:
- A processor for electronic communication.
- Means for communicating with a user and a monitor.
- Means for receiving digitized mammogram data.
- Electronically implementable means in the processor for transforming the data into a plurality of varying-resolution forms, displaying them in different windows, and receiving user control instructions to change the "illumination state" of a displayed form.
- Independent Claim 2 recites a system for interfacing a digitized mammogram to a user, comprising:
- A monitor with a predetermined illumination capability.
- An electronic storage medium with the image data.
- A processor adapted to transfer image data to the monitor to display a mammogram in different forms in a plurality of windows.
- An input device allowing an operator to selectively control the grayscale values and illumination state of the displayed images.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4-12, 16 (dependent on claim 3) and 13-15 (dependent on claim 1). (Compl. ¶¶20, 34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "picture archiving and communication system ('PACS') products" and related digital display and workstation systems (Compl. ¶10). Specific examples cited include the "Brit PACS View," "Vision Mammography Module," "Mammography Module," and "Mammo Module Viewer" (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products provide interfaces between medical images (including mammograms) and a user, incorporating access to stored digitized images (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The products allegedly enable the display of these images with a "plurality of grayscale values" and allow a user to control the "grayscale rendition and illumination state of medical images of varying resolution in different spatial configurations" (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a narrative breakdown of how the accused products allegedly meet the limitations of Claim 1. The complaint includes an illustrative image from the patent depicting the user interface with multiple views and control panels (Compl. p. 3, FIG. 4).
’937 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system for providing an interface between a digitized mammogram and a user | Defendant's products provide an interface between a digitized mammogram and a user. | ¶16 | col. 7:56-57 |
| a processor for electronically communicating with...a user and display monitor, and for receiving digitized mammogram data | Defendant's products contain a processor that communicates with a user and monitor and receives digitized mammogram data. | ¶17 | col. 7:58-64 |
| 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 product software enables display and control over the grayscale rendition of medical images of varying resolution in different spatial configurations. | ¶18 | col. 9:1-8 |
| means for receiving control instructions from the user for changing and controlling the illumination state of the displayed forms | Defendant's product software allows a user to change and control the illumination state of the displayed forms. | ¶19 | col. 9:9-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites several "means for" limitations, invoking means-plus-function analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The scope of these limitations will be restricted to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. A central question will be whether the specific software architecture in Defendant's PACS products is structurally equivalent to the "software means" and associated algorithms described in the patent, such as the creation of "decimated views" alongside high-resolution sections (’937 Patent, col. 5:21-28).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement in general terms. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that Defendant's products perform the specific function of "transforming the digitized data into a plurality of varying-resolution forms" and displaying them as required by the claim, as opposed to simply providing standard image viewing with zoom and pan capabilities.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "electronically implementable means...for transforming the digitized data into a plurality of varying-resolution forms" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation, and its construction is fundamental to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope depends entirely on the "corresponding structure" disclosed in the patent's specification, which could be interpreted narrowly or broadly.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "software means...are loadable into the processor" to perform the transformation function, which could support an argument that any software achieving this result is covered (’937 Patent, col. 2:22-30).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a specific process of creating lower-resolution "decimated views" for an overview display while simultaneously showing selected high-resolution sections from the original data in separate windows (’937 Patent, col. 5:21-38). A party could argue the "structure" is limited to this specific multi-view, multi-resolution display algorithm and the disclosed implementation using "ANSI C, using SPARCworks Visual C++ for the interface development, and the Motif toolkit" (’937 Patent, col. 3:27-30).
The Term: "illumination state" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the user controls in the accused products meet this limitation. Infringement will depend on whether standard brightness and contrast adjustments fall within the term's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim links "illumination state" to "grayscale values," suggesting it could broadly cover any user-controlled modification of the image's tonal range (’937 Patent, col. 9:6-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes adjusting grayscale via three specific controls: "window width," "level," and "gamma value" (’937 Patent, col. 6:41-46). Further, the claims tie the term to a monitor's "predetermined illumination capability," which the specification quantifies for specific hardware (e.g., 120 ft-L) (’937 Patent, col. 4:22, col. 7:62-63). This may support an argument that "illumination state" refers to a more specific set of display calibrations rather than generic brightness/contrast sliders.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "contributory infringement or inducement of infringement" (Compl. p. 10, Prayer ¶(a)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the patent. It does request a judgment that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 11, Prayer ¶(d)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction under § 112(f): The resolution of the case will likely depend on the scope afforded to the "means-plus-function" limitations in the asserted claims. The central question is whether the corresponding structure disclosed in the patent—a specific multi-resolution display methodology implemented on a 1990s-era workstation—can be proven equivalent to the architecture of the modern accused PACS software.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Beyond claim construction, the case will turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that Defendant's systems perform the precise function of "transforming the digitized data into a plurality of varying-resolution forms" and displaying them simultaneously as claimed, or if the accused functionality is merely a collection of standard, non-infringing image manipulation tools.