PM Holdings LLC v. South Plains Surgery Center LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PM Holdings, LLC (Arizona)
  • Defendant: South Plains Surgery Center, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Hoover LLP; Sheridan Ross P.C.
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01803, N.D. Tex., 08/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because the Defendant is headquartered in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ambulatory surgery center infringes patents related to the architectural design and systems integration of a hybrid operating room.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the design and construction of standalone ambulatory surgical centers that incorporate sophisticated hybrid operating rooms, which combine surgical capabilities with fixed, high-end imaging services traditionally found only in large hospitals.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of the asserted patents and the alleged infringement on May 19, 2023. This pre-suit notice forms the primary basis for the complaint's willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-03-19	Priority Date for ’188 and ’664 Patents
2016-04-26	U.S. Patent 9,322,188 Issues
2016-05-10	U.S. Patent 9,334,664 Issues
ca. 2017	Accused Facility Constructed
2023-05-19	Plaintiff Sends Pre-Suit Notice Letter to Defendant
2023-08-11	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,322,188 - "Hybrid Operating Room for Combined Surgical and Fixed Imaging Services in an Ambulatory Surgical Center"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,322,188, "Hybrid Operating Room for Combined Surgical and Fixed Imaging Services in an Ambulatory Surgical Center," issued April 26, 2016. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that combining surgical and fixed imaging services has traditionally been confined to hospitals. This is due to the significant infrastructure required, such as extensive radiation shielding, high-capacity power systems, and stringent building codes (e.g., International Building Code "Institutional Group I-2") that substantially increase construction and operational costs. (’188 Patent, col. 1:24-col. 2:41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a "stationary ambulatory surgical center" (ASC) that is specifically designed to house a hybrid operating room. It achieves this by integrating key hospital-grade features—such as radiation shielding, a dedicated power room for imaging equipment, and a high-rate air change system—into a facility built to the less strict and more cost-effective "Class B" building standards typical for office buildings rather than hospitals. (’188 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-17).
• Technical Importance: The patented design purports to enable the performance of complex procedures, such as interventional cardiology, in a lower-cost, outpatient ASC setting, which was conventionally not feasible. (Compl. ¶¶7-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 16. (Compl. ¶18).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 16:
  • A stationary ambulatory surgical center, comprising:
  • a hybrid operating room;
  • an imaging device using radiation, with the room configured to shield the radiation;
  • an operating table;
  • a power room near the operating room with a power supply for the imaging device;
  • an air change system providing at least six air changes per hour;
  • a conduit from the power room to the imaging device;
  • a door connecting the operating room to a hallway; and
  • a building for the ASC that is "initially constructed to conform to International Building Code (IBC) Class B standards." (Compl. ¶11).
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more of the ’188 Patent claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent No. 9,334,664 - "Hybrid Operating Room for Combined Surgical and Fixed Imaging Services in an Ambulatory Surgical Center"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,334,664, "Hybrid Operating Room for Combined Surgical and Fixed Imaging Services in an Ambulatory Surgical Center," issued May 10, 2016. (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’188 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of creating hybrid operating rooms outside the expensive and highly regulated hospital environment. (’664 Patent, col. 1:25-col. 2:65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a complete "building" that functions as an ASC. The claims recite a similar combination of a hybrid operating room, radiation shielding, dedicated power infrastructure, and an air change system. A key distinction is the addition of an explicit size limitation, claiming a building that "includes 20,000 square feet or less of floor space" and is built to IBC Class B standards. (’664 Patent, Abstract; Claim 22).
• Technical Importance: By claiming the building itself with a size constraint, the patent focuses on a particular model of a compact, standalone, advanced surgical facility. (Compl. ¶¶7-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 22. (Compl. ¶19).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 22:
  • A building, comprising:
  • a hybrid operating room with radiation shielding;
  • an imaging device;
  • an operating table;
  • a power room near the operating room with a power supply for the imaging device;
  • an air change system providing at least six room air changes per hour;
  • a door connecting the operating room to a hallway;
  • a conduit from the power room to the imaging device;
  • wherein the building has 20,000 square feet or less of floor space; and
  • wherein the building is "initially constructed to conform to International Building Code (IBC) Class B standards." (Compl. ¶13).
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more of the ’664 Patent claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's ambulatory surgery center located at 4412 6th Street, Lubbock, Texas, which the complaint collectively refers to as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶¶16, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's facility, constructed around 2017, operates as an ASC offering interventional cardiology services. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). It is alleged to contain at least one hybrid operating room that includes an X-ray imaging machine, an operating table, a nearby power room, power conduits, and a high-capacity air change system. (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiff alleges that these features are confirmed by publicly available architectural and design drawings for the facility and that the building was constructed in conformity with IBC Class B standards. (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits C and D, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

For both the ’188 and ’664 Patents, the complaint alleges that the Defendant’s ambulatory surgery center in Lubbock, Texas, directly infringes by its construction and operation. (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The core of the infringement allegation is that the Defendant’s facility is a physical embodiment of the claimed inventions. The complaint asserts that the facility is a "stationary ambulatory surgical center" (’188 Patent) or a "building" (’664 Patent) that contains all the structural and functional elements recited in the representative claims, including a hybrid operating room, imaging device, dedicated power infrastructure, specified air change system, and construction according to IBC Class B standards. (Compl. ¶17). For the ’664 Patent, the infringement allegation implicitly includes the assertion that the building is 20,000 square feet or less. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claims require a facility that is "initially constructed to conform to International Building Code (IBC) Class B standards." (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). A dispute may arise over the precise definition of "conform to" and which version of the IBC is controlling, raising the question of whether the defendant's facility, as built, falls within this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require specific technical features, such as an "air change system ... configured to provide at least six air changes per hour." (’188 Patent, col. 8:25-28). A key factual question will be whether the Defendant’s HVAC system and other infrastructure were actually designed and built to meet these specific quantitative thresholds recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "hybrid operating room"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the defendant's operating rooms meet the definition of a "hybrid operating room." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the type of imaging technology required to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify the type of imaging device, simply "an imaging device." (’188 Patent, col. 8:18). This could support an interpretation where any room combining surgical functions with any type of co-located imaging service qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses "combined surgical and fixed imaging services" and describes the imaging device as including a "fixed C-arm device." (’188 Patent, col. 1:19-20, col. 6:52-54). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a permanently installed, rather than mobile, imaging system.

• The Term: "initially constructed to conform to International Building Code (IBC) Class B standards"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from heavily regulated hospitals built to stricter standards (like IBC Class I-2). The dispute will likely center on the level of compliance required by "conform to."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "conform to" could be interpreted as meeting the general design principles and requirements of a business occupancy building, without necessarily requiring a formal certification under a specific version of the code.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly contrasts its Class B construction with hospital-grade Class I-2 construction. (’188 Patent, col. 2:42-53). A defendant may argue this requires strict, documented compliance with the "Business Group B" classification as defined in a specific edition of the IBC, such as the one mentioned in the ’664 patent prosecution history. (’664 Patent, col. 6:55-58).

• The Term: "power room near the operating room"

  • Context and Importance: The existence and location of a dedicated power facility is a key structural element of the claims. The definitions of "power room" and "near" will be critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: While the patent figures illustrate an "adjacent" power room, the claims use the potentially broader term "near." (’188 Patent, Fig. 1; cl. 16). Plaintiff may argue "near" does not require the room to be contiguous and that a "power room" can be any space dedicated to housing the requisite power supply equipment for the imaging device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a "power room adjacent to the operating room." (’188 Patent, col. 3:12-13, col. 6:39-40). A defendant could argue this context limits the meaning of "near" to "adjacent" or in immediate proximity, and that a simple electrical closet does not meet the technical requirements of a "power room."

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). The allegation is based on alleged pre-suit, actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents. The complaint states that Defendant received a detailed notice letter identifying the patents and the infringing facility on May 19, 2023, and that its counsel acknowledged receipt but failed to provide a substantive response. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued operation of the facility after receiving notice constitutes willful and wanton infringement. (Compl. ¶21).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "hybrid operating room", which the patent specification links to "fixed imaging services," be construed to cover the specific configuration of imaging equipment present in the Defendant's facility?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual compliance: does the accused surgery center, as-built, possess the specific technical attributes required by the claims, such as an HVAC system configured for "at least six air changes per hour" and construction that "conform[s] to International Building Code (IBC) Class B standards"?
• The case may also turn on the construction of structural terms: whether the Defendant's facility contains a "power room" that is "near" the operating room, as those terms are understood in the context of the patent, will be a central point of contention requiring both claim construction and factual analysis of the facility's layout.