DCT
6:21-cv-01252
Decapolis Systems LLC v. University Health System Services Of Texas Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Decapolis Systems, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: University Health System Services of Texas, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01252, W.D. Tex., 12/01/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains its headquarters and physical business locations within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic health record and patient portal systems infringe patents related to centralized healthcare information processing, automated insurance claim generation, and controlled access to patient records.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of electronic health records (EHR) and practice management systems, which are foundational to modern healthcare data management and administration.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative challenges concerning the patents-in-suit. It does note that the patents have been cited as prior art by numerous technology and healthcare companies, including IBM, Siemens AG, McKesson, and Sony.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-18 | Priority Date for ’040 & ’048 Patents |
| 2008-12-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Issued |
| 2009-02-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 Issued |
| 2021-12-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING AND/OR FOR PROVIDING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND/OR HEALTHCARE-RELATED INFORMATION
Issued February 10, 2009 (the “’048 Patent”)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes problems arising from patient healthcare records being difficult to access, not readily available, and subject to unauthorized access or modification, which compromises patient privacy (Compl. ¶16-17; ’048 Patent, col. 2:21-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method to control access to electronic health records. When a person or entity requests to access or modify a patient's record, the system processes the request and generates a notification message. This message, containing details about the request, is transmitted to the patient's communication device either before or concurrently with the completion of the record access, thereby providing the patient with real-time awareness of who is viewing or changing their health information (’048 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:44-67).
- Technical Importance: This approach addresses patient data privacy and control in an environment of increasingly networked electronic health records by giving patients timely insight into the access and modification of their sensitive information (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of asserted independent claim 20 include:
- Storing information regarding a restriction or limitation on the ability to access, obtain, or modify information in a patient's healthcare record.
- Processing, with a processor, a request by a person or entity to access, obtain, or modify the information.
- Determining, based on the stored restriction, whether the person or entity is authorized.
- Generating a message containing information about the person or entity making the request.
- Transmitting the message to a communication device of the patient over a network.
- The complaint also asserts independent claim 1 and a range of dependent claims (Compl. ¶36).
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING AND/OR FOR PROVIDING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND/OR HEALTHCARE-RELATED INFORMATION
Issued December 9, 2008 (the “’040 Patent”)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a healthcare system where patient information is often inaccurate, incomplete, or not uniformly available to different providers, leading to medical errors (Compl. ¶16-17; ’040 Patent, col. 1:43-67). Additionally, insurance claims processing is described as an inefficient, paper-based system (’040 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system that receives clinical information (e.g., diagnosis, treatment) from a provider's computer. In response to storing or updating a patient's record with this new information, a processing device automatically generates a corresponding insurance claim. The system then transmits this automatically generated claim to the computer system of the relevant healthcare insurer or payer (’040 Patent, Abstract; col. 29:10-30:10).
- Technical Importance: The invention sought to create a direct, automated link between the clinical event of updating a patient's medical record and the administrative event of generating and submitting an insurance claim, aiming to improve efficiency and data consistency (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 46 (Compl. ¶56).
- The essential elements of asserted independent claim 1 include:
- A receiver that receives patient information from a healthcare provider's computer.
- A database that stores information for multiple individuals, providers, and insurers.
- A processing device that processes and stores the received information, updating the patient's healthcare record.
- The processing device automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information or the updating of the record.
- The processing device transmits the insurance claim to a second computer associated with the healthcare insurer.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as a "plurality of electronic healthcare systems, platforms and services, including but not limited to a cloud-based electronic health records ('EHR') and practice management system and software" (Compl. ¶31). The primary example provided is Defendant's "MyChart Patient Portal" (Compl. Fig. 2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused systems provide a "cloud database and framework to receive and send data and messages," manage patient care, and handle administrative tasks like billing, scheduling, and reporting (Compl. ¶31). A screenshot of the MyChart portal shows features allowing patients to pay bills, view test results, and schedule appointments (Compl. Fig. 2, p. 9). Another visual from the complaint describes MyChart as a web-based application providing patients secure online access to their medical records (Compl. Fig. 3, p. 10).
- The complaint alleges Defendant is a provider of health, billing, and electronic patient record services throughout the United States and that it generates "substantial financial revenues and benefits" from the accused systems (Compl. ¶5, ¶35, ¶55).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing the information regarding a restriction or limitation regarding an ability of a person or an entity to at least one of access...information contained in an individuals or patient's healthcare record... | Defendant's systems store information defining the access rights and limitations for various users of patient healthcare records. | ¶41 | col. 27:44-51 |
| 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... | The accused EHR and MyChart systems process requests from users (e.g., providers, patients) to access and modify patient record data. | ¶38, ¶41 | col. 27:52-57 |
| 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... | The systems determine if the requesting user is authorized to perform the requested action based on the stored restrictions. | ¶41 | col. 27:58-64 |
| generating a message containing at least one of information regarding the person or the entity making the request, and identification information... | The infringing methods generate a message that contains information identifying the person or entity making a request to the record. | ¶41 | col. 27:65-col. 28:5 |
| transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient via, on, or over, a communication network. | The infringing methods transmit the generated message over a network to a device associated with the patient. | ¶41 | col. 28:6-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system actually performs the "generating a message" and "transmitting the message to a communication device of the...patient" steps for access events as required by the claim. The complaint alleges this functionality in general terms (Compl. ¶41), but what evidence will show that a specific notification is generated and sent to the patient concurrently with or prior to a provider accessing or modifying a record?
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver, wherein the receiver receives information regarding an individual...transmitted from a first computer...associated with a healthcare provider... | The accused systems receive information regarding individuals from devices associated with healthcare providers. | ¶58 | col. 46:51-62 |
| a database...wherein the database...stores information regarding a plurality of individuals, a plurality of healthcare providers, and a plurality of healthcare insurers... | The accused systems utilize a database that stores records for numerous individuals, providers, and payers. | ¶58 | col. 46:63-col. 47:16 |
| a processing device, wherein the processing device processes the information regarding an individual...storing the information...and updating the healthcare record... | The accused systems include a processing device that stores patient information and updates the corresponding healthcare record. | ¶60 | col. 47:17-24 |
| wherein the processing device automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information...or the updating of the healthcare record... | The processing device automatically generates an insurance claim when new information is stored in or updates the patient record. | ¶60 | col. 47:25-30 |
| wherein the processing device transmits the insurance claim to the second computer or to the second communication device...associated with the healthcare insurer... | The processing device transmits the generated insurance claim to a computer system associated with the relevant insurer or payer. | ¶60 | col. 47:31-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the claim that the accused system "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information." A likely point of dispute is whether the Defendant's system architecture creates this direct, automated link, or if billing and claims generation is a separate process that is merely informed by, but not automatically triggered by, the clinical record update.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information" (’040 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive concept of linking the clinical record-keeping function with the administrative billing function. The outcome of the case for the ’040 Patent may depend on whether the accused system's operation meets this "automatic generation in response to" requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the invention can provide for "automatic claim submission...once a final diagnosis and treatment has been prescribed by a provider" (’040 Patent, col. 5:55-59). This could support an interpretation where "in response to" means the storing of information is a necessary trigger, even if not the sole or immediate one.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart in FIG. 14B shows the "UPDATE PATIENT'S RECORDS" step (1408) is immediately followed by "GENERATE CLAIM FORM" (1409). This sequential depiction could support a narrower construction requiring a direct and immediate causal link between the record update and the claim generation.
"transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient...at least one of during, concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of an at least one of an accessing, an obtaining, a changing..." (’048 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This temporal limitation is critical to the ’048 Patent’s infringement theory. It requires that the patient be notified in near real-time, not through a historical audit log reviewed later. Practitioners may focus on this term because the feasibility and implementation of such real-time notification in a complex EHR system will be a key technical question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "at least one of" provides several temporal options (during, concurrently, prior to), which could be argued to cover a range of notification timings that occur closely with the access event itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes transmitting the message "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, or prior to a completion of" the access. The repetition and specificity of this temporal relationship throughout the patent emphasize its importance, suggesting that a simple after-the-fact notification or log entry would not meet the claim's requirements.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant encourages others, such as healthcare providers and patients, to use the accused systems in an infringing manner through its advertising and provision of the services (Compl. ¶44-47, ¶63-66).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement will become willful upon Defendant's receipt of the complaint, establishing a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶43, ¶62). It also alleges pre-suit "willful blindness" based on an asserted practice of not performing patent clearance reviews before launching products (Compl. ¶48, ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of automated functionality: does the accused EHR system automatically generate an insurance claim as a direct response to the act of storing new clinical information, as required by the ’040 Patent, or is claims processing a distinct, manually-initiated function?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of real-time notification: does the accused "MyChart" system generate and transmit a specific notification message to a patient's device concurrently with or prior to every instance of a third party accessing or modifying their health record, as the temporal limitations of the ’048 Patent's claims require?
- A potential question of claim scope may arise regarding whether the architecture of the patents, which describes a "central processing computer" from the 1999 priority date, can be construed to cover the accused instrumentality, which is described as a modern "cloud-based" system.