DCT
3:22-cv-00657
Decapolis Systems LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Decapolis Systems, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Allscripts Healthcare, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-1120, E.D. Va., 10/05/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant maintains regular and established business presences within the district, including an office in Glen Allen, Virginia.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portfolio of electronic health record (EHR) and healthcare management software platforms infringes two patents related to processing healthcare data, automatically generating insurance claims, and managing access to patient records.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of healthcare information technology, specifically systems for managing electronic health records, automating billing cycles, and ensuring patient data privacy.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates it is a First Amended Complaint, referencing a prior Original Complaint for the purpose of establishing notice. The patents-in-suit are expired, and Plaintiff seeks damages for past infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Priority Date |
| 2001-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 Priority Date |
| 2008-12-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Issue Date |
| 2009-02-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,490,048 Issue Date |
| 2022-10-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
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
- Issued: February 10, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies problems in maintaining the privacy of patient healthcare records, safeguarding that information, and providing patients with control over and notification of who accesses or modifies their files (’048 Patent, col. 2:21-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-implemented method for managing controlled access to electronic healthcare records. The system processes a request from a person or entity to access or modify a patient's file. A key feature is the generation and transmission of a notification message to the patient's own communication device, which details the request and any actual changes made to the record. This notification is sent "during, concurrently with, at a same time as, or prior to a completion of" the access or modification, providing the patient with near real-time oversight (’048 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 16A-17B).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a technical framework for patient-centric data security, giving individuals a mechanism for active, near real-time monitoring of their sensitive health information in an electronic environment.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1, 2, 10, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40, with independent claim 20 identified as exemplary (Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 20 include:
- Receiving and storing information regarding a "restriction or limitation" on the ability to access or modify a patient's healthcare record.
- Processing a request from a person or entity to access or modify that record.
- Determining, based on the stored restriction, whether the requesting person or entity is authorized.
- Generating a message that includes information about the requesting entity and any "actual change, alteration, or modification" made to the record.
- Transmitting that message to a "communication device of the individual or patient" over a network.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING AND/OR FOR PROVIDING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION AND/OR HEALTHCARE-RELATED INFORMATION
- Issued: December 9, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes inefficiencies and errors in healthcare caused by reliance on patient-supplied information, lack of uniform data distribution between providers, and slow, paper-based insurance claim processing (’040 Patent, col. 1:42-67; col. 2:4-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a centralized computer system that receives and stores a patient's clinical information from a healthcare provider. The system's core function is to "automatically" generate an insurance claim "in response to the storing of the information or the updating of the healthcare record." This generated claim is formatted to be suitable for automatic transmission to the associated insurer or payer, thereby linking the clinical event directly to the administrative billing process (’040 Patent, Abstract; Figs. 14A-14B).
- Technical Importance: This technology describes a method to tightly integrate clinical documentation with the billing cycle, aiming to reduce administrative overhead, minimize data entry errors, and accelerate financial reimbursement.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 46 (method) (Compl. ¶57).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A receiver for receiving patient information from a provider's computer.
- A remote database for storing information for pluralities of individuals, providers, and payers.
- A processing device that processes information for storing or updating the individual's healthcare record.
- The processing device "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to" the storing or updating of the record.
- The generated claim is "suitable for being automatically submitted" to the insurer.
- The processing device transmits the claim to a second computer associated with the insurer.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’040 Patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses a broad suite of Defendant's software platforms and services, which it collectively terms the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶¶31-32). This includes, but is not limited to, Allscripts' TouchWorks EHR, Professional EHR, Practice Fusion, Practice Management, Care Director, dbMotion, CarePort, and FollowMyHealth platforms (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities form an integrated healthcare information technology ecosystem used by healthcare providers, payers, and patients. Their functions include creating and managing electronic health records, coordinating patient care across different settings, managing practice operations such as scheduling and billing, and facilitating patient engagement (Compl. ¶¶31.i-xix). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website for its dbMotion platform, which describes the service as integrating "discrete patient data from diverse care settings...into a single patient record" (Compl. p. 11). Another screenshot for the Paragon platform shows an interface for managing patient profile information, including allergies, medications, and advance directives (Compl. Figure 15, p. 19). A screenshot for the Practice Management solution illustrates a user interface for accessing patient scheduling and insurance eligibility information (Compl. Figure 3, p. 10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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... | The Accused Instrumentalities are allegedly configured to receive information regarding restrictions on accessing patient healthcare records from providers, payers, or other authorized entities. | ¶41 | col. 49:1-8 |
| storing the information regarding a restriction or limitation... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly store the information regarding access restrictions. | ¶42 | col. 49:9-11 |
| 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 Accused Instrumentalities allegedly process requests from various entities to access or modify information within a patient's healthcare record. | ¶42 | col. 49:12-17 |
| determining, using the information regarding the restriction or limitation, whether the person or the entity is allowed or authorized to at least one of access, obtain, change, alter, and modify, the information... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly use the stored restriction information to determine if a requesting entity is authorized to access or modify the record. | ¶42 | col. 49:18-24 |
| generating a message containing...information regarding the person or the entity making the request...and further wherein the message contains an actual change, alteration, or modification, made to the information... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly generate a message that contains information about the requesting entity and the specific modification made to the record. | ¶42 | col. 49:25-33 |
| transmitting the message to a communication device of the individual or patient via, on, or over, a communication network. | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly transmit the generated message over a network to a communication device belonging to the patient. | ¶42 | col. 49:34-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether standard, role-based user access controls inherent in most EHR systems meet the claim's requirement for receiving and storing specific "restriction or limitation" information. The analysis may explore whether the claim requires a more granular, patient-defined set of rules rather than general administrative permissions.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the generation and transmission of a notification message to the patient containing details of an "actual change" to their record. A factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused platforms perform this specific notification function directed to the patient, as opposed to generating internal audit logs or provider-facing alerts.
U.S. Patent No. 7,464,040 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver, wherein the receiver receives information regarding an individual...transmitted from a first computer...associated with a healthcare provider... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly receive patient information (symptoms, diagnoses, treatments) transmitted from computers used by healthcare providers. | ¶59 | col. 45:51-60 |
| a database or a memory device...remote from the first computer...wherein the database...stores information regarding a plurality of individuals, a plurality of healthcare providers, and a plurality of healthcare insurers or healthcare payers... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly use a remote database to store comprehensive information on patients, providers, and payers. | ¶59 | col. 46:1-17 |
| a processing device, wherein the processing device processes information for at least one of storing the information regarding an individual in the database...and updating the healthcare record... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly include a processing device that stores and updates patient information in the database. | ¶61 | col. 47:20-27 |
| and further wherein the processing device automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing of the information...or the updating of the healthcare record... | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly include a processing device that automatically generates an insurance claim as a result of storing or updating a patient's clinical record. | ¶61 | col. 47:28-34 |
| wherein the insurance claim is suitable for being automatically submitted to the healthcare insurer or the healthcare payer... | The allegedly generated insurance claim is suitable for automatic submission to the relevant insurer or payer. | ¶61 | col. 47:35-42 |
| and further wherein the processing device transmits the insurance claim to the second computer or to the second communication device...associated with the healthcare insurer or the healthcare payer... | The Accused Instrumentalities' processing device allegedly transmits the generated insurance claim to a computer system associated with the insurer or payer. | ¶61 | col. 47:43-48 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the scope of "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing...or the updating." A question for the court will be whether this language requires a direct, immediate, and fully machine-driven process, or if it can read on systems that suggest billing codes based on clinical documentation for subsequent review and finalization by a human operator.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the nature of the causal link between the clinical and administrative functions in the accused systems. The analysis will examine whether updating a clinical record is the direct trigger for claim generation, as the patent may require, or if claim generation is a distinct process that merely uses the stored clinical data as an input.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "automatically generates an insurance claim in response to the storing...or the updating" (’040 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claims of the ’040 Patent, defining the causal and automated link between a clinical event and a billing event. Its construction will determine whether the accused systems, which may involve human-in-the-loop workflows for billing, fall within the scope of the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "comprehensive processing system" that facilitates "claims processing" and improves "cost efficiency" (’040 Patent, col. 2:37-52). This language could be argued to support a broader interpretation where "automatic generation" encompasses systems that streamline and assist, but do not fully replace, human billing functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract states the claim "is automatically generated by a processing device in response to the storing of the information or the updating of the healthcare record." The flowchart in Figure 14B depicts "GENERATE CLAIM FORM" as a direct, non-conditional step following "UPDATE PATIENT'S RECORDS," which may suggest a direct and immediate machine action without intervening human discretion (’040 Patent, Fig. 14B).
Term: "restriction or limitation" (’048 Patent, Claim 20)
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for the ’048 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory appears to equate standard administrative access controls in an EHR with the "restriction or limitation" of the claim. The case may turn on whether the term requires a more specific, patient-directed privacy rule.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "restriction or limitation" could be argued to cover any rule that limits access, including system-level permissions assigned to different user roles (e.g., doctor, nurse, administrator).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes enabling "patients and individuals to restrict and/or limit access to their healthcare records or files" (’048 Patent, col. 2:26-29). The flowchart in Figure 17A includes a distinct step where a user can "ENTER RESTRICTION(S)/LIMITATION(S)," which suggests an affirmative act of defining a specific rule rather than relying on pre-existing system roles (’048 Patent, Fig. 17A).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant provides advertising, user manuals, and other materials that instruct and encourage its customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶46, 48, 65, 67).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s alleged post-suit knowledge, with the complaint stating that infringement "will now be willful through the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶44, 63). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, claiming Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶¶49, 68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "automatically generates...in response to," which suggests a direct causal link, be construed to cover modern EHR billing workflows where clinical data may inform or suggest codes for human review before a claim is finalized?
- A second central question will be evidentiary and technical: what specific features in the accused Allscripts platforms generate and transmit a notification to a patient detailing an actual modification to their health record, as required by the claims of the ’048 patent? The complaint's conclusory allegations will need to be substantiated with concrete evidence of this functionality.
- Finally, as the patents are expired, the case will focus entirely on damages. A key question will be the determination of a reasonable royalty for the patented technologies within the complex, multi-featured ecosystem of the accused EHR platforms.