DCT
6:21-cv-01263
Decapolis Systems LLC v. DOC LLC also Known As Direct Orthopedic Care
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Decapolis Systems, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: DOC LLC, a/k/a Direct Orthopedic Care (Idaho)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01263, W.D. Tex., 12/03/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains its headquarters, physical business locations, and employees within the district, and generates substantial revenues from its activities there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of third-party cloud-based Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems infringes patents related to methods for managing and processing electronic healthcare information.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to early systems for centralized electronic health records, addressing issues of data accessibility, automated insurance claim generation, and patient privacy notifications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents represent substantial technological advancements and have been cited by numerous industry leaders, including IBM, Siemens, and Sony, during the prosecution of their own patents. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-18 | U.S. Patent 7,464,040 Priority Date |
| 2001-04-25 | U.S. Patent 7,490,048 Priority Date |
| 2008-12-09 | U.S. Patent 7,464,040 Issued |
| 2009-02-10 | U.S. Patent 7,490,048 Issued |
| 2021-12-03 | 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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes problems related to "maintaining patient healthcare records or files private," "safeguarding patient healthcare records," and "enabling patients and individuals to restrict and/or limit access to their healthcare records or files" (’048 Patent, col. 2:20-27). This addresses the challenge of ensuring patient privacy and control as healthcare data becomes digitized and more accessible to various parties.
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-implemented method for enhancing patient control over their electronic health records. When a person or entity requests to access or modify a patient's record, the system generates a notification message for the patient. A key aspect is that this message is transmitted to the patient's communication device "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of" the access or modification event ('048 Patent, Abstract; col. 32:5-15). This provides the patient with contemporaneous awareness of activity related to their personal health information.
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution addresses a fundamental tension in digital health systems: the need for provider access versus the patient's right to privacy and data integrity.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 22, and 38, among others (Compl. ¶36).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Processing, with a processor, a request by a person or entity to access, obtain, change, alter, or modify information in a patient's healthcare record.
- Generating a message containing information about the requestor and the actual change made or sought.
- Transmitting the message to a communication device of the patient over a network.
- The transmission occurs concurrently with, at the same time as, or prior to the completion of the access or modification.
- Independent Claim 22 (Method):
- Receiving information regarding a restriction or limitation on the ability of a person to access or modify information in a healthcare record.
- Storing the information regarding the restriction.
- Processing a request by a person to access or modify the information.
- Determining, using the stored restriction information, whether the person is authorized to access or modify the information.
- The complaint states that "Claim 20 is by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶36). Claim 20 depends from claim 2 and adds limitations regarding the content of the generated message.
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 identifies critical flaws in pre-digital healthcare systems, including the reliance on patient-supplied information from paper forms that "may not necessarily result in sufficient, comprehensive, and/or accurate, information" (’040 Patent, col. 1:56-60). This fragmentation and potential for inaccuracy could lead to medical errors and inefficient, paper-based insurance claim processing (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized computer system that integrates clinical documentation with billing. A healthcare provider transmits patient information (e.g., diagnosis, treatment) to a remote central computer, which updates the patient's electronic record. In response to this update, the system "automatically generates an insurance claim" and transmits it to the appropriate healthcare payer's computer system ('040 Patent, Abstract). This process is illustrated in a flowchart where updating the patient's record (Fig. 14B, step 1408) is followed by generating a claim form (step 1409) and transmitting it to the payer (step 1410).
- Technical Importance: This approach automates and links the distinct workflows of clinical care and financial reimbursement, a foundational concept for modern EHR and practice management systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 46 (Compl. ¶56).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
- A receiver for receiving information regarding an individual from a healthcare provider's computer.
- A remote database that stores information for a plurality of individuals, providers, and payers.
- A processing device that processes information for storing it in the database or updating the 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 insurance claim to a second computer associated with the healthcare payer.
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 DrChrono, Inc.’s cloud-based electronic health records ('EHR') and practice management system and software" (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The DrChrono system is described as a cloud-based platform that Defendant uses to manage numerous aspects of its orthopedic care practice. Its alleged functions include receiving and sending data, managing patient care, referrals, admissions, scheduling, check-in, e-prescriptions, discharge, billing, and reporting (Compl. ¶31). The complaint includes screenshots of the DrChrono platform, described as "The EMR of the Future," showing its use on laptops, iPads, iPhones, and Apple Watches. One screenshot depicts the DrChrono Form Builder, which allows for customizable data entry fields (Compl. Figures 2-4, p. 9-12). Another screenshot from a promotional video shows Defendant's staff using the DrChrono EHR in a clinical setting (Compl. Figure 2, p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
7,490,048 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| processing, with a processor, a request by 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 or an individual’s or patients healthcare file... | Defendant, through the Accused Instrumentalities, makes, uses, and offers for sale a method comprising receiving information and processing requests to access, obtain, change, alter, and modify information in a patient's healthcare record. | ¶38 | col. 31:47-53 |
| generating a message containing at least one of information regarding the person or the entity making the request, and identification 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 infringing methods are alleged to include generating a message containing information about the person or entity making the request and the actual change, alteration, or modification made to the record. | ¶41 | col. 32:1-7 |
| transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient via, on, or over, a communication network. | The infringing methods are alleged to include transmitting the generated message to a patient's communication device over a network. | ¶41 | col. 32:8-11 |
| wherein the message is transmitted to the 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, an altering, and a modifying... | The complaint alleges the infringing method includes transmitting the message to the patient's device during, concurrently with, at the same time as, or prior to the completion of the access or modification of the healthcare record. | ¶42 | col. 32:12-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused DrChrono system generates and transmits a notification message to the patient when their record is accessed or modified by a provider? The complaint alleges this functionality but does not provide visual or documentary evidence, such as a screenshot of such a patient-facing notification.
- Scope Questions: Does the claim term "concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of" the access event require a specific, instantaneous temporal relationship that may not be met by the accused system's actual operation? The interpretation of this timing element could be a central point of dispute.
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 Instrumentalities receive information regarding an individual that is transmitted from a first computer or communication device associated with a healthcare provider over the Internet or World Wide Web. | ¶58 | col. 46:50-60 |
| a database or a memory device, wherein the database or the memory device is associated with the receiver and is located at a location remote from the first computer...wherein the database...stores information regarding a plurality of individuals, a plurality of healthcare providers, and a plurality of healthcare insurers... | The Accused Instrumentalities are cloud-based and utilize a remote database that stores information regarding a plurality of individuals, providers, and payers. | ¶¶31, 58 | col. 46:61-67 |
| a processing device, wherein the processing device processes the information regarding an individual, and further wherein the processing device processes information for at least one of storing the information...and updating the healthcare record... | The Accused Instrumentalities include a processing device that processes and stores information regarding an individual in the remote database, thereby updating the patient's healthcare record. | ¶60 | col. 47:19-24 |
| and further 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 complaint alleges the processing device automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of information or the updating of the healthcare record. | ¶60 | col. 47:25-30 |
| and further wherein the processing device transmits the insurance claim to the second computer or to the second communication device [associated with the healthcare insurer or payer]. | The complaint alleges the processing device transmits the generated insurance claim to a computer associated with the healthcare insurer or payer. | ¶60 | col. 47:38-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: What is the precise mechanism and workflow for claim generation in the accused DrChrono system? Is it a fully automated process triggered directly by a clinical documentation event, or does it require intermediate manual steps by billing personnel?
- Scope Questions: What is the scope of "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information"? A court may need to construe whether this requires a direct, immediate, and causal link without human intervention, or if it can cover a system where clinical data entry populates fields that are later used in a separate, semi-automated billing workflow.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: ’048 Patent
- The Term: "concurrently with, at a same time as, and prior to a completion of"
- Context and Importance: This temporal limitation is central to the claimed invention of providing real-time patient notification. The viability of the infringement claim will depend heavily on whether the accused system's operation falls within the scope of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core novel feature distinguishing the invention from simple after-the-fact auditing or patient portal access.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of multiple similar phrases ("during," "concurrently with," "at a same time as," "prior to") could suggest the patentee intended to cover a range of contemporaneous notifications, not just a single, technically precise instant.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not appear to explicitly define the term. A defendant may argue that in the context of computer processing, these terms imply an immediate, programmatic link where the notification is part of the same transaction or process as the record modification itself.
Patent: ’040 Patent
- The Term: "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information...or the updating of the healthcare record"
- Context and Importance: This term links a clinical activity (data entry/updating a record) with an administrative one (generating a claim). The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused system's claim generation is sufficiently "automatic" and "in response to" the clinical update. Practitioners may focus on this term because it differentiates a truly integrated system from a more conventional one where clinical and billing functions are separate.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a comprehensive system for managing many aspects of healthcare, which may suggest the term should be read broadly to cover any system where clinical updates are a necessary prerequisite for and feed data into a claims generation module, even if not instantaneous.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 14B shows "UPDATE PATIENT'S RECORDS" (1408) is immediately followed by "GENERATE CLAIM FORM" (1409). This sequential, programmatic flow may support a narrower construction requiring a direct and immediate causal link with minimal human intervention between the clinical update and claim generation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant, with knowledge of the patents post-filing, continues its actions and advertises an infringing use, thereby intending for others (e.g., its employees and contractors) to directly infringe (Compl. ¶¶44-47, 63-66).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents acquired upon the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶43, 62). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others first for clearance" before launching products and services (Compl. ¶¶48, 67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary and functional question will be one of contemporaneous notification: does the accused DrChrono EHR system, as used by Defendant, actually perform the function of generating and transmitting a notification message to a patient's device at the same time as, or just prior to, a healthcare provider's modification of that patient's record, as required by the '048 patent?
- A key question of functional scope will be the degree of integrated automation: does the accused system "automatically generate an insurance claim in response to" the clinical act of updating a patient's health record, or is claim generation a distinct, separately-initiated administrative process that falls outside the scope of the '040 patent's claims?