DCT

6:23-cv-00173

Ctprimes LLC v. Philips Medical Systems Cleveland Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00173, W.D. Tex., 03/08/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having committed acts of infringement in the district, having a regular and established place of business, conducting substantial business, having a registered agent, and deriving revenue from goods and services in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Philips IQon Spectral CT system infringes patents related to methods and systems for separating primary and scattered radiation to improve computed tomography (CT) image quality.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced medical imaging, specifically techniques to reduce image-degrading "scatter" in cone-beam CT scanners, which is critical for producing clearer and more accurate diagnostic images.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Philips became aware of the lead patent-in-suit as early as April 2013, when it was cited during the prosecution of one of Philips' own patent applications. The inventor, Dr. Ma, also allegedly notified Philips of the patents-in-suit and provided infringement claim charts in 2018, putting the question of pre-suit knowledge and willfulness at the center of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-09-19 Earliest Priority Date for '513, '831, and '722 Patents
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,513 Issues
2013-04-03 '513 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of a Philips patent application
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,553,831 Issues
2016-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,226,722 Issues
2016-04-06 '513 Patent allegedly cited again during prosecution of a Philips patent application
2018-08-16 Plaintiff's inventor allegedly sent notice letter to Philips regarding patents-in-suit
2018-09-06 Plaintiff's inventor allegedly sent claim charts to Philips
2023-03-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,238,513 - "Imaging System and Method Utilizing Primary Radiation", Issued August 7, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Newer generations of CT systems use wide, cone-shaped X-ray beams, which, while faster, generate a large amount of "scattered radiation." This scattered radiation acts as noise, blurring the final image and degrading its diagnostic quality by reducing the contrast-to-noise ratio ('513 Patent, col. 1:43-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes systems and methods to mathematically separate the useful "primary radiation" from the noisy "scattered radiation." One described embodiment uses a detector with two distinct layers. By measuring the difference in radiation flux detected at these two layers (positions), the system can calculate a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) and use it to reconstruct a cleaner CT image based primarily on the desired primary radiation ('513 Patent, col. 4:55-65; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to achieve the speed and resolution benefits of cone-beam CT while mitigating its chief drawback—image degradation from scatter—without relying solely on physical anti-scatter grids, which have their own limitations ('513 Patent, col. 2:11-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 16 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
    • An imaging system for constructing a CT image, configured to separate primary from scattered radiation based on a mathematical model.
    • A computer configured to calculate a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) based on the model to separate the radiation types and construct the CT image.
    • A detector with two layers of flat-panel X-ray detector arrays at first and second positions, configured to measure a decreasing radiation flux versus distance.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Patent No. 8,553,831 - "Imaging System and Method Utilizing Primary and Scattered Radiations", Issued October 8, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '513 patent, the '831 patent addresses the problem of separating primary and scattered radiation to improve image quality in CT systems ('831 Patent, col. 3:18-44).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on a method that uses information from a "narrow beam" of radiation (like a pencil or fan beam) to predict and correct for the scatter present in a "wide beam" (like a cone beam). The principle is that a narrow beam has very little scatter. By measuring the radiation from a narrow beam, the system can determine a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) that is then applied to the data from the wide beam, allowing the system to computationally remove the scatter component and reconstruct a cleaner image ('831 Patent, col. 4:55-63, col. 5:1-15).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a way to leverage existing narrow-beam CT techniques to enhance the quality of images produced by more modern, faster wide-beam systems, potentially allowing for a hybrid approach to data acquisition and processing ('831 Patent, col. 5:39-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Claim 12 (Method Claim) requires:
    • An image reconstruction method for CT.
    • Determining a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) of a wide beam based on a narrow beam.
    • Determining a primary component of the wide beam based on the SPR to separate it from a scattered component.
    • Constructing an image of an internal structure using the primary component.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,226,722 - "Medical Imaging System and Method with Separate Primary and Scattered Components", Issued January 5, 2016

Technology Synopsis

The '722 patent, a continuation of the earlier patents, refines the disclosed methods for separating primary and scattered radiation. It describes an image reconstruction method that determines a scatter-to-primary ratio using a detector system with multiple layers and a "filling material" with known properties between the layers, again with the goal of constructing a higher-contrast image using the separated primary radiation component ('722 Patent, col. 2:20-27, col. 4:50-57).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶87).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Philips' use of its software-based image reconstruction method in conjunction with the Philips IQon system, which incorporates a dual-layer detector, infringes the '722 patent (Compl. ¶86, ¶89).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Philips IQon Spectral CT system ("Philips IQon system") (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Philips IQon system is a medical imaging system used in hospitals and medical centers in the United States (Compl. ¶14).
  • Its key technical feature, as alleged, is a "dual layer detector," referred to as the "NanoPanel Prism detector," which implements a "Dual Energy CT capability" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also alleges Philips employs a "software-based image reconstruction method" in conjunction with the system (Compl. ¶61, ¶89).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's market positioning beyond identifying it as one of Philips' CT and PET scanner systems (Compl. ¶13).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of each patent but states that exemplary claim charts detailing the infringement theories on an element-by-element basis are provided in external Exhibits F, G, and H, which are not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶37, ¶64, ¶92). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations.

'513 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An imaging system configured to construct a Computed Tomography (CT) image of an internal structure of an object based on a primary radiation, wherein the imaging system is configured to separate the primary radiation from a scattered radiation based on a mathematical model... The Philips IQon system is alleged to be an imaging system that performs image reconstruction and separates radiation types to improve image quality. ¶35 col. 6:58-65
a computer configured to calculate a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) based on the mathematical model to thereby: separate of the primary radiation from the scattered radiation using the SPR in the mathematical model; and construct a CT image based on the primary radiation derived from the mathematical model... The Philips IQon system allegedly uses a "software-based image reconstruction method" to process data and construct the final CT image. ¶35, ¶61 col. 7:1-6
a detector configured to detect radiation intensities in a first position and in a second position, wherein the detector comprises two layers of flat-panel X-ray detector arrays disposed respectively at the first position and the second position and configured to measure a decreasing radiation flux versus distance. The Philips IQon system is alleged to rely on a "dual layer detector, referred to as NanoPanel Prism detector," which corresponds to the claimed two-layer detector structure. ¶15, ¶35 col. 7:10-17

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Does the "mathematical model" used by the Philips IQon system operate in the manner "built upon that the primary radiation propagates in a way different from the scattered radiation," as required by the claim? The specifics of Philips' proprietary algorithm will be central.
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused "dual layer detector" actually function to "measure a decreasing radiation flux versus distance" for the purpose of calculating an SPR as claimed, or does it use its dual-layer structure for a different technical purpose (e.g., dual-energy spectral imaging) that may not align with the claim limitations?

'831 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An image reconstruction method for Computed Tomography (CT)... Philips is alleged to use a "software-based image reconstruction method" in conjunction with the Philips IQon system. ¶61 col. 7:12-14
determining a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) of a wide beam based on a narrow beam; The complaint's theory for the '831 patent is less detailed. It generally alleges that Philips' reconstruction method infringes, but does not specify how or if Philips' system uses "narrow beam" data to inform "wide beam" calculations. ¶61 col. 8:26-30
determining a primary component of the wide beam based on the SPR to thereby separate the primary component from a scattered component of the wide beam; and The complaint alleges Philips' method separates radiation components to improve imaging systems, which is the purpose of this claim step. ¶60, ¶61 col. 8:31-35
constructing an image of an internal structure of an object using the primary component. The end result of the accused method is alleged to be the construction of a medical image for use by Philips' customers. ¶61 col. 8:36-38

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be what "based on a narrow beam" means. Does this require physically acquiring narrow-beam data during the scan, or could it be construed to cover a method that uses a model of a narrow beam or pre-existing data?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused Philips method actually uses any "narrow beam" information at all? The allegations for this patent appear more conclusory than for the '513 patent, and infringement will likely depend on technical details not present in the complaint itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '513 Patent

  • The Term: "a detector... compris[ing] two layers of flat-panel X-ray detector arrays"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on mapping this term to the accused "dual layer detector." The precise structural and functional requirements of the claimed "two layers" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because Philips may argue its "dual layer" detector is structurally or functionally distinct from the configuration described in the patent, for instance, if it is a monolithic dual-energy detector rather than two distinct "arrays."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify a physical separation distance or require the arrays to be mechanically separate components, which may support a broader reading that covers integrated, multi-layer detectors ('513 Patent, col. 7:12-17).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and Figure 5 depict two physically separate detector arrays (5 and 9) with a space between them, which could support a narrower construction requiring distinct, separated layers ('513 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 4:55-62).

For the '831 Patent

  • The Term: "determining a scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) of a wide beam based on a narrow beam"
  • Context and Importance: This is the core of the asserted method claim. The case may turn on whether Philips' accused method performs a step that can be characterized as using narrow-beam data to inform wide-beam processing. The term "based on" is frequently litigated and its interpretation here will be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not explicitly require that the narrow beam and wide beam be generated by the same machine or during the same imaging session. This could support a theory that using a model derived from narrow-beam principles infringes ('831 Patent, col. 7:26-28).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system where a blocking device is used to generate both the narrow and wide beams, suggesting a direct, contemporaneous relationship. The patent states the system is configured to "generate both a narrow beam and a wide beam," which could be read to require a single system performing both actions ('831 Patent, col. 8:1-3, col. 7:16-19).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Philips provides the IQon system along with trainings and software updates, and that Philips has induced customers to use the system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶41-42, ¶68-71, ¶96-99). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the IQon system is a material part of the invention, has no substantial non-infringing uses, and was especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶46-48, ¶74-76, ¶102-104).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on both alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Philips had knowledge of the '513 patent as early as 2013 and 2016 from its citation in Philips' own patent prosecution (Compl. ¶16-17, ¶51). It further alleges direct notice was provided for all patents-in-suit via a letter in August 2018, followed by claim charts in September 2018 (Compl. ¶18, ¶21).

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

  1. A primary issue will be one of pre-suit knowledge and willfulness: Can the plaintiff establish that Philips' awareness of the '513 patent from a "Notice of References Cited" during its own prosecution constitutes the requisite knowledge for willful infringement, and did the 2018 notice letters trigger a duty to avoid infringement for all three patents?
  2. The core technical question for the '513 patent will be one of functional mapping: Does Philips' "dual layer" NanoPanel Prism detector, allegedly designed for spectral imaging, perform the specific function of the claimed "two layers of... detector arrays" by measuring a decreasing radiation flux to calculate an SPR, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation and purpose?
  3. The central infringement question for the '831 and '722 patents will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the lack of specific details in the complaint, can the plaintiff produce evidence from the accused system's software and operation to show that it actually performs the claimed method of "determining a scatter-to-primary ratio... based on a narrow beam" or using a detector with specific "filling material" properties?