DCT

6:25-cv-00071

Web 20 Tech LLC v. Baylor Scott & White Medical Center Hillcrest

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00071, W.D. Tex., 02/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas where the alleged acts of infringement occur.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, which comply with federal "Meaningful Use" standards, infringe a patent related to a secure online repository for managing and selectively disseminating personal information.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns centralized, secure management and user-controlled dissemination of personal data, a foundational concept for modern patient portals and interoperable health information systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint links its infringement theory to Defendant's compliance with federal EHR incentive programs established under the HITECH Act, which includes standards for "Meaningful Use" and "Certified EHR Technology" (CEHRT). The complaint notes this program was later renamed "Promoting Interoperability." No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-07 ’913 Patent Priority Date
2016-10-11 ’913 Patent Issue Date
~2018 EHR incentive program name changed to "Promoting Interoperability"
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 identifies the inefficiency and annoyance faced by users who must repeatedly fill out forms with personal information for various websites and services, with no central method to store, manage, or selectively distribute that information. (’913 Patent, col. 2:31-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system where a user can store various types of personal information in a single online repository. The system allows the user to assign security classifications to different data objects and then authorize the release of specific information to authorized requesters. The system architecture involves a central server computer managing a database, which communicates with both a user's computer and a requester's computer over a network. (’913 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 2:46-54).
  • Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide users with greater control over their digital identity and personal data, streamlining online interactions while enhancing privacy and security. (’913 Patent, col. 2:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶26).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1, a method for permitting access to a patient's personal health record (PHR), include:
    • Establishing a patient account on a server computer.
    • Receiving and storing the patient's personal health information, thereby creating a PHR.
    • Associating "patient-established control settings" with the PHR to restrict access to designated requesters.
    • Receiving an access request from a designated requester with patient identification and authorization.
    • Verifying the authorization.
    • Selecting and sending the authorized portion of the PHR to the requester.
    • Recording every access of the PHR.
    • Enabling access in a medical emergency.
    • Receiving and storing updates to the PHR.
    • Automatically notifying the patient if their PHR is changed.
  • The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories, which may include the assertion of additional claims. (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "customized EHR systems, platforms, and/or services" that Defendant uses and maintains, which comply with federal "Meaningful Use" (MU) and Certified EHR Technology (CEHRT) standards. (Compl. ¶8). This is alleged to include Defendant's patient portal, "mybswhealth-patient-portal." (Compl. p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these systems are certified to perform functions mandated by the HITECH Act, such as issuing electronic prescriptions, exchanging electronic health information, and engaging patients in their own healthcare. (Compl. ¶¶11, 15). Their purpose is to "improve coordination of care, improve efficiency, reduce costs, ensure privacy and security," and allow for the capture and sharing of clinical data. (Compl. ¶¶11, 15).
  • The complaint alleges that by using these CEHRT-compliant systems, Defendant was able to obtain financial incentives from the federal government and avoid financial penalties related to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit (Exhibit 2) that was not publicly filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶28). The narrative of the complaint, however, puts forward a theory that Defendant's use of its CEHRT-compliant EHR systems constitutes direct infringement of the method steps of Claim 1 of the ’913 patent. (Compl. ¶26).

The core of this theory appears to be that the accused EHR systems function as the claimed "online repository" for "personal health records" (PHRs). (Compl. ¶¶8-9, 11). The complaint suggests that these systems perform the claimed method steps: a patient establishes an account and enters health information, creating a PHR; the system then manages access to this PHR for "designated requesters" (e.g., healthcare providers) based on certain controls; when a provider requests data, the system verifies authorization and provides the relevant information. (Compl. ¶¶11, 15-16). The infringement allegation covers the entire lifecycle described in Claim 1, from account creation to data access, updates, and notifications. (Compl. ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "method of permitting access." A central question may be whether Defendant, a healthcare provider "using" an EHR system (which is often licensed from a third-party vendor), is properly considered to be performing every step of the claimed method.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the access controls within the accused EHR system are truly "patient-established control settings" that "restrict access... to one or more designated requesters," as required by the claim. The analysis may focus on whether access is dictated by granular patient choices or by broader, institutionally-defined roles and policies. Further, it raises the question of whether the accused systems "automatically notify[] the patient" every time the PHR is changed, another specific functional requirement of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "patient-established control settings"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement case depends on mapping the functionality of the accused EHR system's access controls to this claim language. Practitioners may focus on this term because the degree of control a patient actually has in a standard EHR environment versus the control envisioned by the patent will be a central point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the general concept of releasing information to "authorized requesters" based on the "second party's status," which could support an interpretation where broad, role-based permissions (e.g., "my treating physician") set by the patient qualify. (’913 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-54).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes assigning a "security classification for each information object" and allowing a user to specify criteria for release, which suggests a highly granular, user-driven control mechanism over individual data fields, potentially narrower than typical EHR consent models. (’913 Patent, col. 10:40-54).

  • The Term: "automatically notifying the patient"

    • Context and Importance: This is a specific, active step in the claimed method. The infringement analysis will require evidence that the accused system performs this exact function in response to a change in the patient's PHR.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses notifying "designated entities" of changes, which might be argued to include the patient as one of several possible recipients of various automated messages. (’913 Patent, col. 13:38-47).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is precise: "if the patient's PHR is changed, then automatically notifying the patient." (’913 Patent, col. 15:33-36). This could be construed to require a notification sent directly and specifically to the patient for any and all changes, a potentially high bar for an accused system to meet.

VI. Other Allegations

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

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and definitional mapping: Can the access control mechanisms in a modern, standards-compliant EHR system—which are often governed by complex institutional policies, regulatory requirements (e.g., HIPAA), and broad patient consent forms—be fairly characterized as the "patient-established control settings" envisioned by the patent, which appears to describe a more granular, user-driven system?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional completeness: Does the complaint provide, and can discovery uncover, evidence that the accused EHR systems perform every affirmative step of the claimed method? This includes potentially dispositive functions such as enabling access in a medical emergency and, critically, "automatically notifying the patient" whenever a change is made to their record, as the claim language requires.