DCT

6:25-cv-00068

Web 20 Tech LLC v. Ascension Providence Hospital

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00068, W.D. Tex., 02/26/2025

  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district where acts of infringement allegedly occur.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems, used to comply with federal "Meaningful Use" standards, infringe a patent related to a method for securely storing and disbursing personal information in an online repository.

  • Technical Context: The dispute is set in the field of health information technology, specifically concerning patient data management systems mandated by federal regulations like the HITECH Act to promote the interoperability and security of electronic health records.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the accused systems were developed and used to comply with the "Meaningful Use" program established by the HITECH Act of 2009, which provides financial incentives for adopting certified EHR technology. This program was later renamed "Promoting Interoperability." The complaint's infringement theory appears to be linked to the functionalities required by these federal standards.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-07 '913 Patent Priority Date
2009-01-01 HITECH Act / ARRA enacted (approximate)
2016-10-11 '913 Patent Issue Date
2018-01-01 "Meaningful Use" program name changed to "Promoting Interoperability" (approximate)
2025-02-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,465,913 - “Online Repository for Personal Information”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency and annoyance for internet users who must repeatedly fill out forms with personal information for various websites and services. It notes the lack of a method for a user to store personal information in a single, secure location and then selectively authorize its distribution to different entities. (’913 Patent, col. 1:29-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system where a user creates an account with a service provider to store various "information objects" (e.g., contact information, medical history, personal preferences). The user can assign different security levels to each piece of information and then grant specific, authorized "requesters" access to designated portions of their data. The system is designed to verify a requester's authorization before releasing information and can also automatically notify designated parties of any updates the user makes. (’913 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-68).
  • Technical Importance: The technology addresses a fundamental need for user-controlled, centralized data management, a concept that predates but is foundational to modern patient portals and digital identity management systems. (’913 Patent, col. 1:58-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶26).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A computer-implemented method for accessing a patient's personal health record (PHR) in an online repository.
    • Establishing an account for a patient on a server computer.
    • Receiving the patient's PHR via a first client computer.
    • Storing the PHR and associating it with "patient-established control settings" that are configurable by the patient and restrict access to designated requesters.
    • Receiving an access request from a "designated requester" via a second computer, which includes an identifier for the patient and authorization information.
    • Verifying the authorization information.
    • Selecting and sending only the authorized portion of the PHR to the second computer.
    • Recording every access of the PHR.
    • Enabling emergency access.
    • Receiving and storing updates to the PHR.
    • Automatically notifying the patient if their PHR is changed.
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims... including but not limited to independent Claim 1," which may suggest an intent to assert other claims as the case develops. (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Instrumentalities" are Defendant's customized Electronic Health Records (“EHR”) systems, platforms, and/or services. (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these EHR systems are certified to comply with the "Meaningful Use" ("MU") and Certified EHR Technology ("CEHRT") standards prescribed by the HITECH Act. (Compl. ¶8). Their alleged functions include issuing electronic prescriptions, exchanging electronic health information, improving care coordination, and engaging patients and caregivers. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that by using these certified systems, the Defendant obtained federal financial incentives and avoided penalties. (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed document. (Compl. ¶28). The infringement theory articulated in the complaint's text is that the Defendant's use of EHR systems that are certified to comply with the federal MU and CEHRT standards infringes one or more claims of the ’913 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 16). The core allegation is that meeting these federal interoperability and patient-access mandates requires implementing a system that practices the method claimed in the ’913 Patent. (Compl. ¶26).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether a modern, federally regulated EHR system, designed for the specific purpose of healthcare delivery under the HITECH Act, falls within the scope of the claims for a more general-purpose "online repository for personal information" as described in the ’913 Patent, which has a priority date that predates the Act.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies heavily on the accused system's certification status rather than detailing its specific technical operation. This raises the question of what evidence demonstrates that compliance with CEHRT standards necessarily requires the performance of each and every step of asserted Claim 1, such as the specific methods for verifying authorization or automatically notifying patients of changes.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "patient-established control settings"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, which is premised on patient control over their own data. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the access controls in the Defendant's EHR system are "established" by the "patient" in the manner contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of differentiation between a system where a patient gives broad consent versus one where the patient actively configures granular permissions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a user's ability to "authorize the release of such information to any person or entity," which could support an interpretation where any form of patient consent or authorization qualifies as a "control setting." (’913 Patent, col. 1:47-49).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a more active role for the user, including assigning a "security classification for each information object, at the tuple or at the field level" and providing keys that allow release of only "a specific type of information." (’913 Patent, col. 10:50-54; col. 10:18-20). This could support a narrower construction requiring granular, patient-configured, object-level permissions, rather than a simple, one-time access grant.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of applicability and scope: Can the method claimed in the ’913 patent, which describes a general-purpose online data repository, be construed to cover the specific functionalities of a modern Electronic Health Records system whose features are dictated by the HITECH Act, a regulatory scheme enacted years after the patent's priority date?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement basis: Does the complaint provide a sufficient factual basis for infringement by relying on the accused system's certification status (CEHRT-compliant), or will Plaintiffs need to produce specific evidence showing that the system's actual technical operation maps directly onto every limitation of the asserted claims? The case may turn on whether compliance with the federal standard is a proxy for infringement or if non-infringing methods of compliance exist.