PTAB

IPR2018-01634

Cerner Corporation v. CliniComp International, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Enterprise Healthcare Management System and Method of Using Same
  • Brief Description: The ’647 patent describes a healthcare management system featuring a remotely-hosted application and database. The system is designed to incorporate data from both new and existing legacy applications, store the combined information, and allow users to query the comprehensive dataset to manage and track the performance of one or more healthcare facilities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 50-52 are obvious over Evans.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Evans (Published PCT Application WO 98/13783).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Evans discloses all limitations of independent claim 50. Evans teaches an electronic medical record (EMR) system with a remotely-hosted "patient data repository" (application server and database) that is accessible over the Internet (a public network). The system is configured to accept legacy data from a "legacy data system" and consolidate it with new data using a "patient locator" application, which performs a non-duplicative enterprise master patient index (EMPI) function. Evans further teaches querying the consolidated data to analyze the performance of a facility, such as patient outcomes, resource utilization, and regulatory compliance.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that while Evans explicitly teaches maintaining patient confidentiality with "several levels of security," it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in 1999 to implement data encryption for communications over the Internet. This was a widely understood and necessary step for securing sensitive health information transmitted over public networks.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 10-13, 15-25, 50-53, and 55 are obvious over Johnson in view of Evans.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Johnson (Patent 6,915,265) and Evans (Published PCT Application WO 98/13783).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This combination allegedly renders obvious both independent claims 1 and 50. Johnson discloses a broad "integrated healthcare system" managing clinical, administrative, and financial data across multiple independent healthcare facilities (e.g., hospitals, physician offices). Its database is partitioned by provider using a unique "provider ID," and access to data is restricted based on this ID. Petitioner argued that Johnson’s teachings of multiple independent facilities and partitioned, restricted database access satisfy the key limitations of claim 1 not explicitly found in Evans. Evans provides the detailed clinical EMR and legacy data integration functionality that complements Johnson’s broader system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references as they are in the same field and are complementary. Johnson provides the high-level integrated system framework, while Evans provides the specific implementation details for the clinical EMR component, including how to handle legacy data. Combining the two would allow a POSITA to build a more comprehensive and complete system, which was a stated goal of both references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the underlying database indexing functionalities of the two systems are analogous and compatible. Johnson uses keys like a "subscriber identification number" and Evans uses a unique Patient Identifier (PID) to index and link records, making their integration straightforward.

Ground 3: Claims 6-9, 14, 53, and 54 are obvious over Evans and/or Johnson in view of Rai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Evans (Published PCT Application WO 98/13783), Johnson (Patent 6,915,265), and Rai (Patent 6,377,982).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Rai teaches conventional networking solutions that render obvious the dependent claims related to specific network architectures. Rai discloses typical network configurations for providing Internet access, such as using a private corporate intranet, connecting to the Internet backbone via a "major point of presence" (POP), and using specific communication carriers like MCI. For security, Rai discloses using well-known protocols like IP-Sec to encrypt data transmitted over the Internet.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the healthcare systems of Evans or Johnson would be motivated to use the conventional, cost-effective, and readily available networking solutions taught by Rai. Linking the application server to the Internet via a major POP located in a data center, as taught by Rai, was a common and logical choice for ensuring a high-quality, reliable connection. Similarly, using a standard protocol like IP-Sec was an obvious choice for securing communications.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "the functions in the healthcare application are not duplicative of the legacy application": Petitioner argued this phrase should be understood in the context of the common 1990s practice of retaining legacy systems during an upgrade. A POSITA would understand that a new healthcare application would be configured not to duplicate a function already being performed by a retained legacy application to avoid inefficiency and conflicts. The function of the application in Evans (EMPI/data consolidation) is inherently not duplicative of the clinical functions of the legacy systems from which it draws data.
  • "application": Petitioner proposed this term refers to software designed to perform a specific task or function, such as the clinical, financial, or administrative applications described in the patent. This construction supports the argument that the different applications disclosed in the prior art perform distinct, non-duplicative functions.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central argument in the petition is that the challenged claims of the ’647 patent are not entitled to the November 24, 1997, filing date of its parent '522 application. Petitioner contended that the '522 application fails to provide adequate written description support for key limitations recited in the challenged claims, including remotely hosting an application on a server, secure communication over a public network, configuring a database to accept legacy information, and managing a system for multiple independent facilities. Therefore, Petitioner argued the effective priority date for all challenged claims is the patent's actual filing date of June 30, 1999, which makes prior art like Evans (published in 1998) available against the claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-25 and 50-55 of Patent 6,665,647 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.