DCT
6:22-cv-00717
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: 6:22-cv-00717, W.D. Tex., 06/30/2022
- 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 use of electronic health record (EHR) systems infringes two patents related to methods for processing healthcare information, automating insurance claims, and notifying patients of access to their records.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves centralized electronic health record systems, which are foundational to modern healthcare for managing patient data, coordinating care, and processing billing and insurance claims.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit are expired but asserts the right to seek damages for past infringement within the statutory period. It also highlights that the patents have been cited by numerous technology and healthcare companies, which Plaintiff presents as evidence of the inventions' significance.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 |
| 2001-04-25 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 |
| 2008-12-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Issued |
| 2009-02-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 Issued |
| 2012-03-07 | Date of press release regarding Defendant's use of Allscripts' EHR system |
| 2022-06-30 | Complaint Filed |
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 section describes problems with maintaining the privacy of patient healthcare records and safeguarding that information from unauthorized access or modification (’048 Patent, col. 2:20-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method to enhance patient record security by providing real-time notifications. When a person or entity requests access to a patient's healthcare file, the system processes the request and generates a notification message containing details about the access attempt (e.g., who is making the request and what changes are being made) (’048 Patent, col. 2:37-47). This message is transmitted to the patient's communication device concurrently with, or even prior to, the completion of the record access, thereby alerting the patient to the activity as it happens (’048 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The described solution offers a proactive security measure, shifting from passive, after-the-fact audit logs to real-time alerts directed at the patient whose data is being accessed.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20, as well as numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶36).
- Exemplary independent claim 20 includes these essential elements:
- Receiving information regarding a restriction or limitation on the ability of a person/entity to access, obtain, change, alter, or modify information in a patient's healthcare record.
- Storing this restriction information.
- Processing a request by a person/entity to access, obtain, change, alter, or modify the record.
- Determining, using the stored restriction information, whether the person/entity is authorized.
- Generating a message containing information about the requesting person/entity and any actual change made.
- Transmitting the message to the patient's communication device.
- Wherein the message is transmitted at least one of during, concurrently with, at the same time as, or prior to the completion of the access or processing of the request.
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 identifies inefficiencies and errors in the healthcare system stemming from fragmented, paper-based, and non-uniform patient information, which can lead to improper diagnoses, treatment mistakes, and slow, fraudulent, or inefficient insurance claims processing (’040 Patent, col. 1:24-67, col. 2:4-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized computer system that integrates clinical data management with insurance claim generation. A healthcare provider transmits patient information (e.g., symptoms, diagnosis, treatment) to the system, which then stores the information or updates the patient's healthcare record (’040 Patent, col. 28:57-64). In response to this storage or update, a processing device automatically generates an insurance claim suitable for submission to the relevant healthcare payer and transmits it to the payer's computer system (’040 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach automates and links the clinical documentation process with the administrative billing process, aiming to improve the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of healthcare claims submission.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 46 (Compl. ¶56).
- Exemplary independent claim 46 includes these essential elements:
- Storing information for a plurality of individuals, providers, and payers.
- Receiving information regarding an individual from a first computer associated with a healthcare provider.
- Storing the received information in a database or updating the individual's healthcare record.
- Automatically generating an insurance claim in response to the storing or updating.
- Wherein the claim is suitable for automatic submission to the payer associated with the individual.
- Transmitting the insurance claim to a second computer associated with the payer.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "Allscripts' cloud-based electronic health records ('EHR') and practice management system and software," as used by Defendant University Health (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant uses the Allscripts system to manage a "single patient record" and share data across its facilities to provide "continuity of care" (Compl. ¶31, Figure 2). A press release included in the complaint describes Defendant as a "nationally recognized academic medical center" using the Allscripts EHR for its hospital and nearly 700 employed physicians (Compl. Figure 2).
- The system's alleged functions include operating a "cloud database and framework to receive and send data," manage patient care, schedule appointments, handle billing and collections, and manage patient records (Compl. ¶31). The complaint includes a screenshot of Defendant's website showing its multiple locations within the district, which is presented as evidence of where the accused system is used (Compl. Figure 1).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| a computer-implemented method, comprising: 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... | Defendant’s system receives information regarding restrictions on who can access or modify patient records, such as different access levels for a provider, payer, or insurer. | ¶38 | col. 2:37-41 |
| storing the information regarding a restriction or limitation... | The system stores the access restriction information, such as user permissions and roles. | ¶41 | col. 25:21-23 |
| 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 system processes requests from users (e.g., Defendant's employees) to access or modify patient health information. | ¶41 | col. 25:24-28 |
| determining, using the information regarding the restriction or limitation, whether the person or the entity is allowed or authorized... | The system determines if the requesting user is authorized to perform the requested action based on the stored restrictions. | ¶41 | col. 25:29-35 |
| 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... | The system generates a message that identifies the user making the request and the specific changes made to the patient's record. | ¶41 | col. 25:36-44 |
| 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... | The system transmits the notification message to the patient's device in real-time as the access or modification is occurring or being processed. | ¶42 | col. 25:45-55 |
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 46) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer-implemented method, comprising: storing information regarding a plurality of individuals, a plurality of healthcare providers, and a plurality of healthcare insurers or healthcare payers, in a database or a memory device... | Defendant’s system stores information regarding its patients, its healthcare providers, and various healthcare payers/insurers. | ¶58, ¶59 | col. 2:42-47 |
| receiving information regarding the individual with a receiver, wherein the information regarding the individual is transmitted from a first computer or from a first communication device... associated with... the healthcare provider... | Defendant’s system receives patient information (symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc.) transmitted from computer devices used by its healthcare providers. | ¶58 | col. 27:7-13 |
| 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 system stores this new information in its database, thereby updating the patient's electronic health record. | ¶60 | col. 27:14-17 |
| generating an insurance claim, wherein the insurance claim is automatically generated by a processing device in response to the storing of the information regarding the individual... or the updating of the healthcare record... | The system’s processing device automatically generates an insurance claim as a direct result of storing the new clinical information or updating the patient's record. | ¶60 | col. 27:18-24 |
| transmitting the insurance claim to the second computer or to the second communication device... associated with the healthcare insurer or the healthcare payer... | The system transmits the automatically generated insurance claim to the computer system of the relevant payer or insurer associated with the patient. | ¶60 | col. 27:32-35 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’048 Patent, a central question may be whether standard role-based access controls in a commercial EHR system constitute the claimed "restriction or limitation" as contemplated by the patent. Another point of contention may be what constitutes a "communication device of the individual or patient," and whether the complaint provides evidence that notifications are sent to such a device rather than to an internal administrative log.
- Technical Questions: For the ’040 Patent, the infringement analysis may turn on the term "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to" the record update. A key factual question is whether the accused system performs this as a single, direct, and automated causal chain, or if claim generation is a separate process that may require additional user intervention or is merely batched for later processing, potentially severing the claimed "in response to" link. For the ’048 Patent, the core technical question is evidentiary: what proof is there that the accused system transmits notifications to a patient's device with the specific real-time or pre-emptive timing ("concurrently with" or "prior to a completion of") required by the claim?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information... or the updating of the healthcare record" (’040 Patent, Claim 46)
- Context and Importance: This term is the inventive core of the claim, linking a clinical action (updating a record) with an administrative one (generating a claim). The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this causal and automated link can be proven in the accused system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract describes the process as "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," which suggests a direct, system-level connection rather than requiring a specific user action to trigger both steps (’040 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of a preferred embodiment shows a sequence where a final diagnosis is transmitted (step 1407), patient records are updated (1408), and then a claim form is generated (1409) (’040 Patent, Fig. 14B). A defendant may argue this depicts distinct, sequential steps rather than an immediate and inseparable "in response to" action.
Term: "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 accessing" (’048 Patent, Claim 20)
- Context and Importance: The patentability of this claim over prior art audit logs likely rests on this specific, real-time or pre-emptive timing of a notification sent directly to the patient. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "completion" is interpreted broadly (e.g., at the end of a user session), the claim is stronger, whereas a narrow interpretation (e.g., during the sub-second data transaction) could make infringement difficult to prove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "prior to a completion" could be argued to cover any point before the access event is finalized and logged, which could include the entire duration of a user's session with the patient record open.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated use of terms like "concurrently with" and "at a same time as" in the claim language could support an interpretation requiring near-simultaneous action, suggesting the notification must be sent at the moment of data access, not merely before the user logs off. The Abstract reinforces this by stating transmission occurs "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, or prior to a completion of, an accessing" (’048 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of both patents by providing the accused systems and services for use by its employees, medical staff, and others, knowing their use would constitute infringement (Compl. ¶44, ¶63). For the ’048 Patent, it specifically alleges that "advertising an infringing use" supports an intent to induce (Compl. ¶47).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement became willful "through the filing and service of this Complaint," establishing post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶43, ¶62). It also alleges that Defendant was "willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff" based on a purported practice of not performing patent clearance reviews before launching services (Compl. ¶48, ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of automated causality: Does Defendant's EHR system automatically generate an insurance claim as a direct and immediate response to the updating of a patient's clinical record, as required by the '040 patent, or are these functionally distinct processes that lack the claimed causal link?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of temporal and logistical proof: What is the factual basis for the allegation that the accused system transmits access notifications to a patient's communication device "concurrently with" or "prior to a completion of" the record access, as required by the '048 patent, as opposed to creating an after-the-fact audit log for internal or administrative review?
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can standard, role-based permission settings common in enterprise software be construed to meet the '048 patent's claim limitation of a "restriction or limitation regarding an ability... to access" a healthcare record, or does the patent's specification require a more specific, patient-defined type of restriction?