DatRec LLC v. Omnicell Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DatRec, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Omnicell, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-02532, N.D. Tex., 10/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Omnicell Outbound Patient Communications product infringes a patent related to methods and systems for verifying user identity to enable secure communication over a public network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using cross-referenced data from multiple sources to establish a reliability score for an individual's identity, which then governs their permitted level of communication within a network.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior matters, though the terms are confidential. Plaintiff asserts that these prior licenses did not involve the production of a patented article and therefore do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309 - “Method and System for Secure Communication Over a Public Network,” issued February 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that users of public networks, like the internet, are often exposed to "non-secure connections and to communications from unreliable or falsely-identified senders" (’309 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to improve confidence in a party's identity during electronic communication (’309 Patent, col. 1:63-65). It describes creating a database by collecting "individual-associated data bits" (IDBs) from a plurality of users, where these IDBs include personal identifiers and relationship data (e.g., family ties) (’309 Patent, col. 9:1-12). The system then verifies an individual's identity by comparing the data submitted about them by different people and determines a "level of reliability" based on the "degree of identity between data" (’309 Patent, col. 2:36-40). Based on this verification, the system can define and enforce different "levels of permitted communications" between users (’309 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to create a trust mechanism for online interactions by building a verified identity profile not just from self-reported data, but from a web of cross-corroborated information provided by related individuals (’309 Patent, col. 2:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-17 of the ’309 patent (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is central to the allegations.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Providing a database with verified data relating to an individual's identity.
  • Constructing the database by permitting multiple related individuals to enter "individual-associated data bits (IDB) comprising a personal identifier and relationship data indicative of a family tree."
  • Generating an "individual-associated data set (IDS)" from the IDB.
  • "Verifying the IDS for the individual by determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals."
  • Compiling the individual data sets to construct the database.
  • Defining "one or more levels of permitted communication" between individuals based on the verification.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims beyond the general assertion of claims 1-17.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentality is Defendant's "Omnicell Outbound Patient Communications product" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a "system and method for secure communication over a public network" (Compl. ¶9). It is offered through Defendant's website and is marketed for use in contexts such as retail pharmacy (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the product, stating that support for the infringement allegations is found in an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’309 patent but supports its allegations by referencing a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B," which was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶10). The following chart maps the elements of independent claim 1 to the general infringement theory presented in the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’309 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's focus on a "Patient Communications" product raises the question of whether the patient-provider or patient-pharmacy data it uses could be construed as "relationship data indicative of a family tree" as required by the claim.
• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused Omnicell product performs the specific verification method claimed: "determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals." The complaint provides no factual allegations that the system cross-references data from multiple distinct sources to generate a reliability score for a patient's identity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "relationship data indicative of a family tree"

Context and Importance: This term defines the type of input data required to build the claimed verification system. Its construction is critical because the accused product operates in a healthcare context, not a genealogical or social networking one. The dispute will likely center on whether patient data collected by a pharmacy or hospital system can meet this "family tree" limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent also uses the general term "relationship data" and lists examples that include not only family but also "friends, acquaintances, neighbors, business colleagues or associates," which could suggest the "family tree" language is exemplary, not strictly limiting (’309 Patent, col. 5:48-52).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the specific phrase "indicative of a family tree." Furthermore, the specification repeatedly provides examples focused on "first degree family members (parents, brothers and sisters, spouse, children)" and "further (second, third, etc.) degree family members (grandparents, cousins, in-laws, etc.)" (’309 Patent, col. 5:44-48), which may support a construction limited to familial relationships.

The Term: "verifying...by determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals"

Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical mechanism for authentication. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific multi-source comparison process. The infringement case depends on whether the accused product's method for confirming patient identity performs this specific claimed function.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "verifying" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any step that confirms identity, and that "level of reliability" does not require a specific numerical score.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process where "data strings" from a first and second user are compared to calculate a "relative reliability," for example, where a "reliability of more than 8 out of 10 is required" (’309 Patent, col. 10:49-59). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a quantitative, multi-source comparison.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant actively encourages and instructs customers on how to use the "Omnicell Outbound Patient Communications" product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the product is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶12).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the ’309 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to amend if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1; ¶12, fn. 2). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. ¶VI.e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "relationship data indicative of a family tree," which is described in the patent primarily with examples of relatives and friends, be construed to cover the structured patient-provider and patient-pharmacy data used in the accused healthcare communication system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Omnicell product actually perform the specific verification method required by Claim 1—namely, generating a "level of reliability" by comparing data about a single patient that was "entered by different individuals"—or does it use a different, more conventional method of identity verification that falls outside the claim scope? The complaint currently lacks the factual detail to answer this question.