DCT

2:17-cv-00116

Medical Priority Consultants Inc v. Vitalclick

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: *Medical Priority Consultants Inc. v. VitalClick*, 2:17-cv-00116, D. Utah, 02/16/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having committed acts of patent infringement in the district and being subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s medical dispatching software infringes a portfolio of twenty-three U.S. patents related to computer-assisted emergency dispatch protocols.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-implemented systems that guide emergency dispatchers through a standardized, algorithm-based process for handling medical emergency calls and providing pre-arrival instructions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that inventor Dr. Jeffrey J. Clawson is the owner of the patents-in-suit and has licensed them to co-plaintiff Priority Dispatch. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1960-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 3,053,864 Priority Date
1962-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 3,053,864 Issue Date
1997-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 5,857,966 Priority Date
1997-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 5,989,187 Priority Date
1997-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,004,266 Priority Date
1997-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,010,451 Priority Date
1997-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,076,065 Priority Date
1997-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,106,459 Priority Date
1999-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 5,857,966 Issue Date
1999-11-23 U.S. Patent No. 5,989,187 Issue Date
1999-12-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,004,266 Issue Date
2000-01-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,010,451 Issue Date
2000-04-25 U.S. Patent No. 3,053,864 Issue Date (Incorrect patent number in complaint)
2000-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,076,065 Issue Date
2000-08-22 U.S. Patent No. 6,106,459 Issue Date
2002-04-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,835 Priority Date
2002-04-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,428,301 Priority Date
2002-08-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,607,481 Priority Date
2003-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,607,481 Issue Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,436,937 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,417,533 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,488,748 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,670,526 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,712,020 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,873,719 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,066,638 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,294,570 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,355,483 Priority Date
2006-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,396,191 Priority Date
2006-09-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,835 Issue Date
2006-01-01 Accused Company VitalClick Founded
2008-09-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,428,301 Issue Date
2008-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,436,937 Issue Date
2011-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,066,638 Issue Date
2012-10-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,294,570 Issue Date
2013-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,355,483 Issue Date
2013-03-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,396,191 Issue Date
2013-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,417,533 Issue Date
2013-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,488,748 Issue Date
2014-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,670,526 Issue Date
2014-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,712,020 Issue Date
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,873,719 Issue Date
2015-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,319,859 Priority Date
2015-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,491,605 Priority Date
2015-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,516,166 Priority Date
2016-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,319,859 Issue Date
2016-11-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,491,605 Issue Date
2016-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,516,166 Issue Date
2017-01-25 Plaintiff receives Defendant’s electronic brochure
2017-02-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,106,835 - "Method and System for Integrating a Computer Aided Dispatch System with an Emergency Medical Dispatch Protocol"

  • Issued: September 12, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a disconnect between two critical software systems used in emergency response: the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, which tracks and allocates resources like ambulances, and the Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) protocol system, which guides call-takers through medical interrogations. The lack of integration requires manual data transfer, creating inefficiencies and potential for error in high-stakes situations (’835 Patent, col. 1:10-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a software interface that allows a CAD system and an EMD protocol system to operate together and exchange information automatically. This integration enables the EMD system to be launched from the CAD system, and allows critical data, such as the determined level of emergency response, to be passed back from the EMD to the CAD system for resource dispatch (’835 Patent, col. 2:41-55, Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: This integration aimed to streamline the emergency call-taking process, reducing dispatcher workload and potentially speeding up the allocation of appropriate emergency resources by automating data exchange between previously separate systems (’835 Patent, col. 2:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶82). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • Initiating a computer aided dispatch system.
    • Receiving an incident call.
    • Calling an expert emergency medical dispatch system, which interrogates for information, calculates a determinate value, and sets a dispatch process state.
    • Returning control to the CAD system, which tests for the dispatch process state.
    • Returning control to the expert emergency medical dispatch system.

U.S. Patent No. 5,857,966 - "Method and System for the Unconscious or Fainting Protocol of an Emergency Medical Dispatch System"

  • Issued: January 12, 1999

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Emergency calls for unconscious or fainting patients are common and can be the first sign of extremely serious medical problems. The patent addresses the need for a systematic, standardized method for dispatchers to respond to these calls to ensure accurate and efficient assessment (’966 Patent, col. 2:3-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a structured method, or protocol, for an emergency dispatcher. This protocol guides the dispatcher through a scripted sequence of "key questions" to gather critical information (e.g., Is the patient diabetic? Do they have heart problems? Are they breathing normally?). Based on the answers, the system assigns a "determinant value" that categorizes the urgency of the situation and dictates the appropriate emergency response (’966 Patent, col. 3:15-3:45, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: This technology standardized the initial triage of unconscious patients over the phone, aiming to reduce variability in dispatcher skill and ensure that the most critical patients receive the fastest and most appropriate level of care (’966 Patent, col. 1:43-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-5, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶90). Independent claims 1 and 8 are representative.
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • Receiving a medical call regarding a patient needing medical assistance.
    • Inquiring if the patient is diabetic.
    • Inquiring if the patient has heart problems.
    • Inquiring if the patient is breathing normally.
    • Inquiring if the patient is still unconscious.
    • Inquiring if the patient is alert.
    • Setting an appropriate determinant value based on said inquiries.
    • Dispatching medical personnel as determined by the determinant value.
  • Claim 8 (Method):
    • A method for managing the response process in a general purpose computer system, comprising steps of displaying instructions to inquire about the patient's condition (diabetic, heart problems, breathing, consciousness, alertness) and setting a dispatch code based on the stored data.

U.S. Patent No. 5,989,187 - "Method and System for Giving Remote Emergency Medical Counseling for Childbirth Patients"

  • Issued: November 23, 1999 (Compl. ¶36)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a standardized method for emergency dispatchers to provide remote medical counseling for childbirth patients. The system guides the dispatcher through a series of scripted questions to assess the stage of labor and provides pre-arrival instructions for assisting with the delivery (’187 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3 are asserted (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,004,266 - "Method and System for the Heart Problem Protocol of an Emergency Medical Dispatch System"

  • Issued: December 21, 1999 (Compl. ¶37)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method and system for guiding an emergency dispatcher through a specific protocol for calls related to heart problems. The system uses a sequence of key questions to determine the nature and severity of the cardiac event and assigns a determinant level to guide the appropriate emergency response (’266 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-14 are asserted (Compl. ¶106).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,010,451 - "Method and System for Giving Remote Emergency Medical Counsel to Choking Patients"

  • Issued: January 4, 2000 (Compl. ¶38)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides a structured protocol for dispatchers to give remote counsel for choking victims. The system guides the dispatcher through questions to assess the situation (e.g., whether the patient can breathe or talk) and provides instructions for performing assistance like the Heimlich maneuver (’451 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-4 are asserted (Compl. ¶114).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,053,864 - "Method and System for Giving Remote Emergency Medical Counsel to Arrest Patients"

  • Issued: April 25, 2000 (Compl. ¶39)
  • Analyst Note: The complaint contains a typographical error; the patent number is 6,053,864, not 3,053,864.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for providing remote medical counsel to patients in cardiac arrest. The system provides a structured set of questions and instructions for the dispatcher to guide a caller through initial life-saving procedures before paramedics arrive.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3 are asserted (Compl. ¶122).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,076,065 - "Method and System for the Pregnancy Condition Protocol of an Emergency Medical Dispatch System"

  • Issued: June 13, 2000 (Compl. ¶40)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a protocol for handling emergency calls related to pregnancy conditions. The system guides a dispatcher through scripted inquiries about the patient's condition (e.g., stage of pregnancy, presence of bleeding or labor pains) to determine the urgency and appropriate response (’065 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶130).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,106,459 - "Method and System for the Entry Protocol of an Emergency Medical Dispatch System"

  • Issued: August 22, 2000 (Compl. ¶41)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a universal "entry protocol" for emergency medical dispatchers. It provides the initial scripted questions to identify the caller's chief complaint, age, and status of consciousness and breathing, which then directs the dispatcher to the appropriate, more specific medical protocol (’459 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-14 are asserted (Compl. ¶138).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 6,607,481 - "Method and System for an Improved Entry Process of an Emergency Medical Dispatch System"

  • Issued: August 19, 2003 (Compl. ¶42)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to an improved entry process for emergency dispatch systems, designed to rapidly gather critical information from a caller. The system provides a structured method for identifying the chief complaint and vital signs to triage the emergency and direct the dispatcher to the correct subsequent protocol (’481 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 are asserted (Compl. ¶146).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 7,428,301 - "Method and System for the Exit Protocol of an Emergency Medical Dispatch System"

  • Issued: September 23, 2008 (Compl. ¶43)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent covers an "exit protocol" for emergency dispatch, which provides standardized post-dispatch and pre-arrival instructions to callers after emergency services have been dispatched. These instructions are designed to ensure patient safety and prepare for the arrival of responders (’301 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are asserted (Compl. ¶154).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 7,436,937 - "Method and System for the Police Response Dispatch Protocol of an Emergency Dispatch System"

  • Issued: October 14, 2008 (Compl. ¶44)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for police dispatch that uses a structured, interrogatory protocol to classify the criticality of a call. The system guides the dispatcher to gather specific information and uses it to calculate a determinant value, which dictates the appropriate police response (’937 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-9 are asserted (Compl. ¶162).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,294,570 - "Burn Diagnostic and Intervention Tool for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: October 23, 2012 (Compl. ¶45)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a diagnostic tool for emergency dispatchers to assess burn injuries. The tool provides a user interface, often with a visual portrayal of the human body, to help the dispatcher calculate the burn surface area based on caller-relayed information, which can be used to determine the appropriate emergency response (’570 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-31 are asserted (Compl. ¶170).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,355,483 - "Stroke Diagnostic and Intervention Tool for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: January 15, 2013 (Compl. ¶46)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides a diagnostic tool for dispatchers to help identify if a patient has likely suffered a stroke. The system guides the dispatcher through a specific protocol of questions and instructions (e.g., asking the patient to smile or raise their arms) to gather information on stroke symptoms (’483 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-29 are asserted (Compl. ¶178).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,396,191 - "Anti-Social Protocol for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: March 12, 2013 (Compl. ¶47)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for processing emergency calls involving anti-social behavior or hate crimes. The protocol guides the dispatcher to gather information relating to the incident and potential bias motivations, which can then be used to determine an appropriate dispatch response (’191 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-19 are asserted (Compl. ¶186).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,417,533 - "Method and System for the Fire Response Dispatch Protocol of an Emergency Dispatch System"

  • Issued: April 9, 2013 (Compl. ¶48)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides a dispatch protocol specifically for fire response. The system uses a systematic process of questions to gather critical information about a fire (e.g., what is burning, is anyone trapped) and calculates a determinant value to guide the appropriate level of fire department response (’533 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-25 are asserted (Compl. ¶194).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,488,748 - "Meningitis Diagnostic and Intervention Tool for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: July 16, 2013 (Compl. ¶49)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a diagnostic tool for dispatchers to help determine the likelihood that a patient has meningitis. The system provides a user interface with questions to guide the caller in identifying signs and symptoms associated with meningitis (’748 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-25 are asserted (Compl. ¶202).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,670,526 - "Hate Crime Diagnostic and Intervention Tool for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: March 11, 2014 (Compl. ¶50)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides a diagnostic tool for dispatchers to gather information regarding potential hate crimes. The system presents categories of potential bias to the dispatcher to collect uniform data about the victim and the incident, which can be used for tracking and determining an appropriate response (’526 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-22 are asserted (Compl. ¶210).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,712,020 - "Pandemic Protocol for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: April 29, 2014 (Compl. ¶51)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a dispatch protocol for handling emergency calls related to a pandemic illness. The system provides a pre-scripted interrogation to gather symptom information, determine a triage level, and guide the dispatcher to an appropriate response based on the severity of the pandemic (’020 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-29 are asserted (Compl. ¶218).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,873,719 - "Active Assailant Protocol for Emergency Dispatch"

  • Issued: October 28, 2014 (Compl. ¶52)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a protocol for emergency dispatchers to handle calls involving an active assailant. The system provides pre-scripted inquiries to gather critical information for responder safety (e.g., type of weapons, suspect location) and provides instructions for callers (e.g., evacuation, lockdown) (’719 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-20 are asserted (Compl. ¶226).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,319,859 - "System and Method for Text Messaging for Emergency Response"

  • Issued: April 19, 2016 (Compl. ¶53)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides a system for integrating text messaging (SMS/MMS) with an emergency dispatch protocol. It allows a dispatcher to send pre-programmed inquiries via text and receive responses, facilitating communication when a voice call is not possible (’859 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶234).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,605 - "Text Messaging for Emergency Response"

  • Issued: November 8, 2016 (Compl. ¶54)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for facilitating emergency response via text messaging. The system allows a dispatcher to send preprogrammed inquiries and receive responses via SMS/MMS, and to automatically select answers based on the received text, which can expedite the dispatch process (’605 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-7, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶242).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,516,166 - "Chemical Suicide Protocol for Emergency Responses"

  • Issued: December 6, 2016 (Compl. ¶55)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a protocol for handling emergency calls involving a potential chemical suicide. The system provides a diagnostic tool to help the dispatcher assess the likelihood of a chemical suicide, increase scene safety, and provide appropriate instructions to the caller and responders (’166 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-22 are asserted (Compl. ¶250).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,066,638 - "Diagnostic and Intervention Tools for Emergency Medical Dispatch"

  • Issued: November 29, 2011 (Compl. ¶56)
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides computer-implemented diagnostic and intervention tools for dispatchers, such as timers and monitors for breathing, pulse, and contractions. These tools assist the dispatcher in gathering vital sign information from a caller and providing assistance based on that data (’638 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16-23, 25, 27, 34-41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52-62 are asserted (Compl. ¶258).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s medical dispatching software products infringe the patent (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant VitalClick's "public safety products," which include desktop and mobile software applications for medical dispatching (Compl. ¶20, 21). A screenshot in the complaint identifies the product as "VitalClick EMD," a customizable "Emergency Medical Dispatch Protocol Reference System (EMDPRS)" (Compl. p. 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are software applications utilized by emergency medical dispatchers "to provide pre-arrival instructions and to predetermine what emergency personnel should be sent" (Compl. ¶21). The software is also described as enabling protocol updates consistent with national standards (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges VitalClick is a direct competitor to Priority Dispatch and was founded in 2006 (Compl. ¶20). A screenshot from VitalClick's website shows a dispatcher at a multi-monitor computer station, with the text "VitalClick provides the ideal platform for real-time implementation of the latest emergency medical protocols in an automated, centralized system" (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of claim elements to the accused product's features, such as through a claim chart. The infringement allegations are made generally, stating that VitalClick infringes the asserted claims of each patent through its "range of products that utilize emergency dispatch protocols" (Compl. ¶57, 82, 90). The complaint includes a visual from a VitalClick advertising brochure that depicts a dispatcher using Plaintiff's MPDS® product, which may be intended as evidence that VitalClick's system functions in a similar, infringing manner (Compl. p. 6). However, the complaint does not explicitly connect the functionality shown in the advertisement to any specific claim elements.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary legal question may be whether the complaint's general allegations, absent an element-by-element mapping of the accused products to the asserted claims, meet the plausibility pleading standard for patent infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal.
  • Technical Scope: For the numerous patents on specific medical protocols (e.g., fainting, heart problems, childbirth), a central technical question will be whether the accused software implements the specific, claimed sequence of inquiries and decision logic. The dispute may turn on whether the accused software's algorithms are structurally and functionally equivalent to the methods recited in the claims.
  • System Integration: For the ’835 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused software provides an "interface" that "integrates" a CAD system with an EMD protocol in the specific manner claimed, particularly concerning the automated, bidirectional exchange of control and data between the two systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "determinant value"

  • (from ’966 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is central to nearly all asserted patents, as it represents the output of the patented diagnostic process—a code that quantifies the emergency's severity and dictates the level of response. The scope of this term will be critical, as infringement will depend on whether the accused software calculates a value that performs the same function in the same way as the claimed "determinant value."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the system assigns "a determinant value establishing the criticality of the problem" (’966 Patent, col. 4:37-39). This could support a construction covering any value or code that prioritizes an emergency, regardless of its specific format.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific determinant levels, such as "A-Alpha," "B-Bravo," "C-Charlie," and "D-Delta," each corresponding to a different level of urgency and response (’966 Patent, col. 6:11-31). This may support a narrower construction limited to a system that uses a similar multi-level, categorical coding scheme.

The Term: "protocol"

  • (from ’966 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The patents claim methods and systems for specific "protocols" (e.g., fainting protocol, heart problem protocol). The definition of "protocol" will be crucial in determining whether the accused software, which is advertised as implementing "emergency medical protocols" (Compl. p. 7), practices the claimed inventions. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires the exact sequence of questions recited in the claims or if it can cover systems with different but functionally similar question flows.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the invention in general terms as a "systematic and standardized method for responding to emergency medical requests" (’966 Patent, col. 2:15-16). This language could support a broader definition covering any structured, rule-based process for handling a specific type of medical call.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and figures recite a specific, ordered series of inquiries. For example, Claim 1 of the ’966 Patent lists six distinct inquiry steps, and Figure 6 shows a detailed flowchart of this exact sequence (’966 Patent, Claim 1; Fig. 6). This may support a narrower construction requiring the accused software to perform the same steps in substantially the same order.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that VitalClick has been "actively and knowingly teaching and encouraging VitalClick's customers, distributors, and/or end users to use the Infringing Products according to the teachings and methods covered by the claims of the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶58). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of induced infringement.

Willful Infringement

For each of the twenty-three asserted patents, the complaint alleges on "information and belief" that VitalClick's infringement has been "willful with full knowledge of the [asserted patent] and Plaintiffs' rights therein" (e.g., Compl. ¶85, 93, 101). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge was pre-suit or post-suit.

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

  • A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s assertion of infringement over a broad portfolio of twenty-three patents, without providing any specific element-by-element factual allegations, state a claim that is "plausible on its face" enough to survive a motion to dismiss?
  • A key technical question will be one of structural and functional equivalence: do the algorithms within the accused software perform the specific, ordered steps and logical branching of the claimed "protocols," or do they achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different method of inquiry and analysis?
  • The case also presents a significant evidentiary question related to willfulness: what evidence, beyond the formulaic "information and belief" pleading, will Plaintiffs present to establish that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of any of the twenty-three asserted patents, a portfolio spanning over two decades of technological development?