DCT
6:21-cv-00489
Decapolis Systems LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Decapolis Systems, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Allscripts Healthcare, LLC (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00489, W.D. Tex., 05/10/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence in the District, including physical business locations and employees.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s suite of electronic health record (EHR) and healthcare management platforms infringes two patents related to processing healthcare information, automatically generating insurance claims, and managing access to patient records.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves centralized electronic systems for managing patient health data, diagnoses, treatments, and insurance claims, which are foundational components of the modern digital healthcare industry.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are expired but alleges they remain enforceable for seeking damages for past infringement. The complaint also highlights that the patents have been cited by numerous major technology and healthcare companies, which Plaintiff presents as evidence of the inventions' significance and unconventionality at the time they were developed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Priority Date |
| 2001-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 Priority Date |
| 2008-12-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7464040 Issued |
| 2009-02-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7490048 Issued |
| 2021-05-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 - "Apparatus and Method for Processing and/or for Providing Healthcare Information and/or Healthcare-Related Information"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiencies and errors inherent in healthcare systems reliant on paper-based records, where patient information may be inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistently available to different providers, leading to mistakes and increased costs (’040 Patent, col. 1:24-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a centralized computer processing system that connects patients, providers, and payers over a network (’040 Patent, Fig. 1). The system is designed to receive information about a patient from a healthcare provider, use that information to update the patient’s electronic health record stored in a remote database, and then automatically generate an insurance claim “in response to the storing of the information or the updating of the healthcare record” (’040 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a system for automating the link between clinical documentation and insurance claim generation, a key step in streamlining healthcare administration and reducing manual data entry. (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 46 (’040 Patent, col. 46:1-48:31; Compl. ¶56).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) includes these essential elements:
- A receiver for receiving information regarding an individual from a healthcare provider’s computer over a network like the Internet.
- A remote database that stores information for pluralities of individuals, providers, and payers.
- A processing device that processes the received information by storing it or updating the individual's healthcare record.
- The processing device automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing or updating of the record.
- The processing device transmits the generated claim to a computer associated with the healthcare insurer or payer.
- Independent Claim 46 (Method) includes these essential elements:
- Storing information for pluralities of individuals, providers, and payers in a remote database.
- Receiving information about an individual from a provider’s computer over the Internet.
- Storing the received information or updating the individual’s healthcare record.
- Automatically generating an insurance claim in response to the storing or updating action.
- Transmitting the insurance claim to a computer associated with the insurer or payer.
U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 - "Apparatus and Method for Processing and/or for Providing Healthcare Information and/or Healthcare-Related Information"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need to maintain privacy and control over electronic patient healthcare records, particularly by enabling patients to restrict or limit access to their sensitive information and be notified of any changes (’048 Patent, col. 2:20-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-implemented method for managing and monitoring access to an electronic healthcare record. A user can establish restrictions on who can access or modify the record. When a request to access or modify the record is made, the system determines if it is authorized based on the stored restrictions. Crucially, the system generates and transmits a notification message to the patient's personal communication device, informing them of the access, request, or modification, with this notification occurring concurrently with or prior to the completion of the action (’048 Patent, Abstract; col. 38:50-39:3).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a mechanism for enhancing patient privacy and control over personal health information, a significant consideration in the management of digital records. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 20 (’048 Patent, col. 60:53-61:5; Compl. ¶36).
- Independent Claim 20 (Method) includes these essential elements:
- Receiving and storing information regarding a restriction on the ability of a person/entity to access, obtain, or modify a patient's healthcare record.
- Processing a request from a person/entity to access, obtain, or modify the record.
- Determining, based on the stored restriction, whether the requesting person/entity is authorized.
- Generating a message containing information about the requestor and "an actual change, alteration, or modification, made to the information."
- Transmitting the message to the patient's communication device concurrently with, at the same time as, or prior to the completion of the access or modification.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint collectively identifies a wide array of Defendant’s healthcare IT platforms as the "Accused Instrumentalities," including 2bPrecise, Allscripts Practice Management, Care Director, dbMotion, CarePort, SunRise, FollowMyHealth, Paragon, Payerpath, and TouchWorks EHR, among others (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- Based on the complaint's descriptions, the Accused Instrumentalities provide a comprehensive suite of software solutions for managing clinical and administrative healthcare functions. Key technical functionalities include creating and maintaining a "comprehensive patient record" by consuming and synthesizing clinical and genomic data; providing a "longitudinal patient record" by integrating data from diverse IT systems; managing patient accounts, scheduling, and billing; and facilitating communication and care coordination across different healthcare settings (Compl. ¶31.i, ii, iii, iv, xii).
- The complaint alleges these platforms are used to manage the entire patient care cycle, from ambulatory to acute and post-acute care, suggesting they serve a significant portion of the healthcare market (Compl. pp. 16, 18). A screenshot of Defendant's dbMotion platform shows a "Clinical View Agent" interface used to display a patient's encounters and medical problems, which is indicative of an electronic health record system (Compl. p. 14, Figs. 5 & 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 46) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing information regarding a plurality of individuals, a plurality of healthcare providers, and a plurality of healthcare insurers or healthcare payers... | Defendant's platforms allegedly develop, own, and maintain "digital storage archives for healthcare and related records." | ¶56.ii | col. 41:1-8 |
| receiving information regarding the individual...transmitted from a first computer or from a first communication device...associated with a healthcare provider... | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to "receive[] information regarding an individual, wherein the information...is transmitted from a first computer...associated with a healthcare provider." | ¶58 | col. 40:48-55 |
| at least one of storing the information regarding the individual in the database or the memory device and updating the healthcare record or the healthcare history of...the individual... | The platforms allegedly include a processing device that "processes information for at least one of storing the information regarding an individual in the database...and updating the healthcare record." | ¶60 | col. 41:20-25 |
| generating an insurance claim, wherein the insurance claim is automatically generated by a processing device in response to the storing of the information...or the updating of the healthcare record... | The processing device within the accused platforms allegedly "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information...or the updating of the healthcare record." | ¶60 | col. 41:25-32 |
| transmitting the insurance claim to the second computer or to the second communication device...associated with the healthcare insurer or the healthcare payer... | The processing device is alleged to transmit the generated insurance claim to a computer associated with the healthcare insurer or payer. | ¶61 | col. 42:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's systems, which may consist of separate clinical (EHR) and financial (billing) modules, perform a single, integrated "method" as claimed. The question for the court may be whether the various alleged functions are performed by a unified system or by distinct products that do not collectively practice the claimed method.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the claim that an insurance claim is generated "automatically...in response to" a clinical record update. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates this direct, automated causal link. It is possible the accused systems require intervening user actions or operate as part of a separate, user-initiated billing workflow that is not a direct "response" to a clinical data update in the manner required by the claim.
U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 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... | The complaint alleges, in conclusory fashion, that the accused methods comprise "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." | ¶38 | col. 49:28-34 |
| storing the information regarding a restriction or limitation... | The complaint alleges the infringing methods involve "storing the information regarding a restriction or limitation." | ¶41 | col. 50:18-20 |
| 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 platforms, such as dbMotion, are described as providing a "consolidated and actionable patient record," which allows clinicians to access patient information, thereby processing requests for access (Compl. p. 14, Figs. 5 & 6). | ¶41 | col. 50:21-26 |
| 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, obtain, change, alter, and modify, the information... | The accused methods are alleged to perform the step of "determining, using the information regarding the restriction or limitation, whether the person or the entity is allowed or authorized" to access or modify the record. | ¶41 | col. 50:27-34 |
| 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 platforms allegedly generate a message containing information about the requestor and the actual modification made. The Care Director platform is alleged to "Automate patient interactions," which may relate to generating such messages (Compl. p. 12, Fig. 4). | ¶41 | col. 50:35-44 |
| transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient... wherein the message is transmitted...at least one of during, concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of...an accessing... | The infringing method allegedly includes "transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient" with the specific, concurrent timing required by the claim. | ¶¶41-42 | col. 50:45-56:12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the scope of "a message containing...an actual change, alteration, or modification." The question is whether this requires the notification to include the specific substance of the data that was modified (e.g., "Medication X was changed to Y"), or if a more general alert (e.g., "Your medical record has been updated") is sufficient to meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence of how the accused platforms receive and store the granular "restriction or limitation" on access as required by the claim. A key factual question will be whether the accused systems possess such a feature. Another technical question will be what evidence supports the allegation that notifications are transmitted concurrently with or prior to the completion of a record modification, as opposed to being sent after the fact.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing...or the updating..." (from '040 Patent, Claim 46)
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the causal and automated link between the clinical record-keeping function and the administrative billing function, which is a central inventive concept of the ’040 Patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether Defendant's systems exhibit this direct, responsive connection or if claim generation is a distinct, user-initiated workflow.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the invention can provide "automatic claim submission...once a final diagnosis and treatment has been prescribed...and/or upon the occurrence of an examination and/or the administration of a treatment," suggesting a close and automated link triggered by clinical events (’040 Patent, col. 5:54-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 14B depicts "UPDATE PATIENT'S RECORDS" (step 1408) and "GENERATE CLAIM FORM" (step 1409) as distinct, sequential steps. This could support an interpretation that while the process is automated, the generation is not an immediate, direct "response" to the update but a subsequent step in a larger workflow, potentially allowing for intervening triggers or validations.
Term: "a message containing...an actual change, alteration, or modification, made to the information" (from '048 Patent, Claim 20)
Context and Importance: This term defines the necessary content of the notification message sent to the patient. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on whether the notifications generated by the accused systems contain the specific substance of the change itself, or merely a general alert that a change has occurred.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the phrase, which could leave room to argue that notifying a user that a change occurred is equivalent to providing a message "containing" the change.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the message as "containing an actual change, alteration, or modification, sought to be made or made to the...healthcare record," which suggests the message's content is the substance of the change itself, not merely a reference to it. The ordinary meaning of "containing" may support an interpretation that the substance of the modification must be included within the body of the message.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing its platforms and services to healthcare providers and others, thereby enabling and encouraging them to perform the patented methods. This is allegedly supported by Defendant's advertising and marketing activities (Compl. ¶44, ¶47, ¶63, ¶66).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents following the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶43, ¶62). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting that Defendant has a practice of not reviewing the patent rights of others before launching its products (Compl. ¶48, ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of automated causation: for the '040 patent, does the accused software "automatically generate" an insurance claim as a direct, programmatic "response to" the act of updating a clinical record, or is claim generation a distinct, user-driven process that merely follows a clinical update in a broader workflow?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of informational scope: for the '048 patent, does the claim term "message containing...an actual change" require the patient notification to include the specific substance of the data that was modified, or is a general alert that a record has been updated sufficient to meet this limitation?
- An overarching question will be the sufficiency of allegations: do the complaint's allegations, which rely heavily on public marketing materials, provide a sufficient factual basis to plausibly map the specific internal operations of the accused platforms to the technical requirements of the claims, particularly concerning the granular access-control rules and concurrent notification features of the '048 patent?