Health Grades, Inc. v. MDX Medical, Inc.
Filing
931
ORDER granting 490 MDx's motion for summary judgment of no infringement with regard to amended complaint and allegations relating to Aetna Life Insurance Company. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 11/4/2014.(tscha, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00520-RM-BNB
HEALTH GRADES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MDX MEDICAL, INC.,
doing business as Vitals.com,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ON INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by MDx Medical, Inc. (“MDx”) for
summary judgment of no infringement with regard to Health Grades, Inc.’s First Amended
Complaint, as it pertains to allegations relating to Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”) and
its iTriage application (“iTriage application”) (hereinafter the “Aetna Motion”) (ECF No. 490).
The Aetna Motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), the
Court’s jurisdiction over this case is based on the U.S. Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff Health Grades, Inc. (“Health Grades”) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,752,060 (issued
Jul. 6, 2010) (the “’060 Patent”). The invention claimed therein relates to an “Internet-based
system and method that connects patients with potential healthcare providers, e.g., physicians
and hospitals.” (’060 Patent col.1 ll.12-14.) MDx maintains the website www.vitals.com (the
1
“MDx website”), the current version of which was launched in January 2011. (ECF No. 195 at
2.) This Court has already set forth the basic facts regarding the claimed invention and the
accused MDx product in several previous orders of this Court, dated April 4, 2013, June 26,
2014, and July 15, 2014 (ECF Nos. 696, 808, 810). Those facts will be supplemented herein as
necessary to focus on the iTriage websites.
During discovery in this case, Health Grades sought information and documents relating
to MDx’s database licenses. MDx opposed many of these discovery requests, but Health Grades
learned of a license to Aetna from MDx for Aetna’s iTriage application. (ECF No. 252 at 1.)
Like the Health Grades and MDx websites, iTriage provides information and reports about
healthcare providers to users of the websites (mobile and desktop), which can be used as a basis
for healthcare provider selection. Health Grades moved to amend its complaint to assert causes
of action for joint infringement and indirect infringement in July of 2012, asserting that “Health
Grades did not learn of the iTriage license until Aetna publicly announced it in March 2012.”
(Id.)
On January 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boland granted Health Grades’ motion to amend
its complaint to add allegations of indirect and joint infringement relating to a third party, Aetna.
(ECF No. 480.) The Amended Complaint contained allegations of joint infringement, inducing
infringement, and contributory infringement. (ECF No. 481.) Subsequently, Health Grades
withdrew its cause of action for joint infringement. (ECF Nos. 512, 525 at 2 n.1.) MDx moves
for summary judgment on the remaining claims of infringement involving Aetna’s iTriage
application.
2
B. Facts
In the fall of 2011, MDx entered into an agreement with Aetna to provide Aetna with
healthcare provider data for use in Aetna’s iTriage application. (ECF No. 481 at 4.) “MDx also
agreed to develop, manage and maintain a full database for use with the iTriage application and
to provide training for Aetna to use this database.” (Id.) Aetna is a company that provides a
service—the iTriage application—for connecting healthcare providers with potential patients.
(ECF No. 525 at 5.)
The iTriage application instructs users that ratings of providers are done on the Vitals
website; the patient ratings used by the iTriage application are obtained from surveys conducted
on www.vitals.com, and the surveys are managed by MDx. (ECF No. 490 at 3; admitted at ECF
No. 525 at 5.) The agreement between MDx and Aetna (the “Aetna Agreement”) sets forth what
MDx will provide Aetna: it states that MDx will create a “Master Database,” including
establishing “an Aetna-defined database (i.e., to an Aetna-defined model) fed from the MDx
database.” (ECF No. 486-1 at 7.)
The Aetna Agreement does not specify exactly what data Aetna will collect from MDx
nor how Aetna will use that data; it did specify that the “Master Database will contain all MDx
Patient Reviews, which will connect directly with Aetna’s Patient Review System to be
developed by Supplier.” (ECF No. 486-1 at 8.) MDx also agreed to “include all its patient
ratings for the providers in the Master Database, for display by Aetna.” (Id. at 9.)
II. STANDARD
Summary judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when the
“movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
3
to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A movant who bears the burden at trial must submit evidence to
establish every essential element of its claim. In re Ribozyme Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., 209 F.
Supp. 2d 1106, 1111 (D. Colo. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rest solely on the
allegations in the pleadings, but instead must designate “specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); see FED. R. CIV. P.
56(c).
Only disputes over material facts can create a genuine issue for trial and preclude
summary judgment. Faustin v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2005).
A disputed fact is “material” if, under the relevant substantive law, it is essential to proper
disposition of the claim. Wright v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001).
An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a
verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997). When
reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id.; see McBeth v. Himes, 598 F.3d 708, 715 (10th Cir.
2010).
II.
ANALYSIS
There are two types of indirect infringement: active inducement and contributory
infringement, and it “is axiomatic that ‘[t]here can be no inducement or contributory
infringement without an underlying act of direct infringement.’” In re Bill of Lading
Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting
Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The direct
4
infringement may be either literal or by equivalents. The briefing on the instant motion devotes
substantial attention to the degree to which the evidence supports or refutes the existence of
direct infringement in the context of the iTriage products.
The Aetna Motion and accompanying briefing was filed before this Court ruled on
MDx’s motion for partial summary judgment on non-infringement (ECF No. 195). The Court
has now ruled on that motion, granting summary judgment in favor of MDx as to literal
infringement, but denying it as to infringement by equivalents subject to further consideration of
prosecution history estoppel. (ECF No. 696 at 28.) And on October 23, 2014, following a Festo
hearing, the Court ruled in MDx’s favor on prosecution history estoppel and ordered that Health
Grades is estopped from “asserting the doctrine of equivalents against all accused equivalents
surrendered.” (ECF No. 913 at 21-22.) Given these rulings, much of the parties’ arguments
regarding direct infringement by Aetna and the iTriage application have largely been addressed.
The Court will not fully repeat the direct infringement analysis here. The crucial aspect
for purposes of the Aetna Motion is that much of the direct infringement disagreement has now
been resolved. In order for literal infringement to exist, comparison ratings of healthcare
providers must be included within the healthcare provider report on the “first healthcare
provider.” And equivalents in the form of ratings within search results returned before selection
of a “first healthcare provider,” as well as other equivalents which do not “literally include
comparison ratings,” (ECF No. 913 at 21), are not protected by the ’060 Patent due to
prosecution history estoppel.
Additionally, there has been a significant legal development which impacts this matter.
Health Grades’ briefing on this matter, which was filed in February 2013, relied heavily on
5
Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301, 1305 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2012)
(en banc). Health Grades stated that under the new rule announced in that case, “Health Grades
does not need to prove that a single entity (e.g., Aetna) performs all of the steps of the claimed
method in connection with a cause of action for indirect infringement.” (ECF No. 525 at 18.)
That holding was recently reversed by the Supreme Court in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai
Technologies, Inc., which held that indirect infringement would not be found where no one
person committed direct infringement by performing all the steps of a patented method. 134
S.Ct. 2111 (2014).
These matters significantly affect the Aetna Motion. As one example, Health Grades’
counsel conceded at a hearing on October 30, 2014 that the Festo Order and other prior rulings
essentially resolved any claim of direct infringement as it pertains to the iTriage mobile
application. Health Grades’ counsel said that “the other portion of the iTriage website, the
mobile app in that case, we view that as likely covered by your order. . .” (Hearing Transcript,
October 30, 2014, at 13:14-13:16.) Nonetheless, the Court will not herein dissect the various
possible website configurations and direct infringement claims to discern whether any escape the
impact of such matters.1 This is because the Court has determined that even assuming arguendo
that some degree of direct infringement may still be provable, there is a lack of disputed issues of
material fact on other elements of inducement and contributory infringement. Analysis for each
of these issues is set forth below.
1
For example, Health Grades argues that direct infringement of Claim 15 exists by virtue of the claim being a
system claim which can be read as being infringed whenever an accused system has the mere “reasonable
capability” of an infringing use. (ECF No. 525 at 22-24.) While the Court does not read the claim in the manner
suggested by Health Grades, the contention stands as an example of an allegation that might avoid the impact of the
prior orders.
6
A. Active Inducement
“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). “[I]nducement requires that the alleged infringer knowingly induced
infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.” DSU Med.
Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The “mere knowledge of possible
infringement by others does not amount to inducement; specific intent and action to induce
infringement must be proven.” Warner–Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2003). Specific intent “may be established through circumstantial evidence [or] may
be inferred from all of the circumstances.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683,
699 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 669 (Fed. Cir.
1988)).
MDx argues that Health Grades has not and cannot proffer any evidence of specific intent
to induce infringement. In response, Health Grades points to the following alleged facts, largely
derived from the Aetna Agreement: (1) MDx entered an agreement to develop, manage and
maintain a full database to be the data backbone for iTriage; (2) iTriage “is strikingly similar to
MDx’s accused on-line information system;” (3) MDx has a policy it follows to avoid
infringement, but did not communicate this policy to Aetna and Aetna does not follow it; (4)
MDx is developing an Aetna Patient Review System and perhaps is also providing its “Provider
EZ Edit” tool which could enable Aetna to collect healthcare provider information directly from
the healthcare provider; and (5) MDx provided Aetna with a demonstration as to how MDx’s
accused product functions. (ECF No. 525 at 27-28.) There is also passing reliance on the fact
7
that one official at MDx had the iTriage mobile application on his smart phone and, thus, was
presumably aware of what Aetna was doing with MDx’s data. (ECF No. 525 at 10.)
None of the above facts, even if established and proven at trial by Health Grades, would
create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the specific intent of MDx to induce
infringement. The first three facts are hardly directed to the specific intent element—or if they
are, even if accepted as true, they fall short of “culpable conduct, directed to encouraging
another’s infringement, not merely… knowledge of the direct infringer’s activities.” DSU Med.,
471 F.3d at 1306. The mere fact that MDx agreed to provide data to Aetna does not speak to
specific intent to induce infringement. As MDx points out, Aetna—not MDx—determines the
data it wants from the database and the structure of its websites. (See generally ECF No. 486-1,
Schedule No. 001 to the Aetna Agreement.) Moreover, given the Court’s prior rulings as to the
MDx website, there are a number of ways the MDx data could be presented which would not
constitute infringement. The Aetna Agreement speaks to no specific presentation. Accordingly,
the licensing of data by MDx does not speak to an intent to induce Aetna to use the data in some
particular manner which infringes the ’060 Patent.
The similarity between the MDx and Aetna sites does not create a genuine issue of
material fact regarding specific intent either. As noted, the prior rulings largely insulate most
MDx website configurations from claims of infringement. Similarity to a non-infringing site is
therefore hardly relevant—even assuming that MDx was responsible for inducing the similarity.
As for MDx’s policy to avoid infringement, MDx is not required to communicate its
policies to those with whom it does business. The fact that MDx did not tell Aetna how MDx
seeks to avoid infringement simply does not translate into evidence that MDx was therefore
8
seeking to induce infringement, particularly where MDx did not control or seek to control
Aetna’s use of the MDx data. This line of reasoning simply requires too great an inferential leap
for any reasonable jury.
The purported facts regarding the Aetna Patient Review System and the Provider EZ Edit
tool are likewise insufficient. Putting aside the difficulty that Health Grades’ argument on this
point is more speculative than concrete (See ECF No. 525 at 28 (“MDx is developing (or has
developed) an Aetna Patient Review System . . . MDx may also be providing . . . its “Provider
EZ Edit tool . . . “)), there is nothing in such purported facts, even if accepted as true, which
suggests that data collected or verified be the precise data within the scope of the ’060 Patent or
that Aetna use such data in a manner which would infringe the ’060 Patent. Thus, even if there
were evidence that MDx induced Aetna to use such tools, that evidence falls short of evidence
supporting specific intent to induce infringement.
The most promising alleged fact for Health Grades on the specific intent issue, and in fact
the only one that potentially addresses MDx’s intent regarding Aetna’s alleged infringement, is
the assertion that “MDx…provided Aetna with a [presentation] as to how MDx’s accused
vitals.com website functions.” (ECF No. 525 at 28.) The inference, of course, is that MDx
induced or encouraged or led Aetna to use the data as MDx did. Putting aside the content of the
presentation for a moment, the first page of the exhibit evidencing the Powerpoint Presentation
reveals the critical fact—it was “[p]resented to Aetna [on] January 11, 2008.” (ECF No. 525-17
at 2.) At that point, the ’060 Patent had not issued. Regardless of whether or not the
presentation actually serves as evidence of inducement, which in the Court’s view it does not, as
a matter of law there cannot be inducement or intent to induce if there is no patent at the time of
9
the alleged inducement. See, e.g., Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc. v. W. Bend Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1196
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
Finally, the fact that an MDx official has the iTriage application on his smart phone is not
circumstantial evidence of intent to induce. That alleged fact may or may not, putting aside
issues with the timeline, indicate knowledge of Aetna’s product. But inducement requires more.
See, e.g., Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(quoting DSU Med., 471 F.3d at 1306. (“[I]nducement requires evidence of culpable conduct,
directed to encouraging another's infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the
direct infringer's activities.” ).) And as conceded by Health Grades, given the prior orders of the
Court, the mobile app does not infringe the ’060 Patent. (See Hearing Transcript, October 30,
2014, at 13:15-13:16.)
Health Grades’ briefing on the specific intent element is inadequate to create a genuine
issue of material fact with respect to specific intent. After devoting considerable time to
establishing direct infringement, Health Grades devotes less than two full pages to analyzing the
specific intent element. In that section, Health Grades asserts specific intent several times, but
does not sufficiently link that conclusory assertion with actual disputed facts that would
permitthis issue to go to a jury. For instance, Health Grades asserts that “MDx developed,
manages and maintains the Aetna Master Database with the specific intent that Aetna use it for
iTriage,” (ECF No. 525 at 28), but then follows that assertion with the alleged disputed facts that
“MDx provides a substantial amount of its accused data to allow for iTriage to… infringe[] the
asserted claims,” and “MDx provides almost all of the accused elements of its database to Aetna
and Aetna uses almost all of these elements in iTriage.” (Id.) (emphasis added). The
10
emphasized words highlight the problem with Health Grades’ argument—MDx licenses a
database to Aetna, but nothing about the nature of that licensing agreement requires
infringement. And to withstand summary judgment, Health Grades needs something more than
what it has shown the Court.
Health Grades’ argument on the intent issue can be boiled down to the following
statement: “[b]y providing its accused data and performing the other tasks outlined in the Aetna
Agreement, MDx is actively inducing Aetna to infringe the ’060 patent.” (ECF No. 28.) Having
reviewed the agreement between Aetna and MDx that forms the core of Health Grades
evidentiary accusations, the Court disagrees. Providing a database does not amount to intent by
MDx to induce infringement of the ’060 Patent, and providing a database was fundamentally
what MDx agreed to do and has done for Aetna. The Aetna Agreement specifically sets forth
Aetna’s control over the data it receives from MDx, and makes clear that “Aetna defines the data
it wants in the Master Database.” (ECF No. 486-1 at 8.)
Health Grades has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence of material factual
disputes relating to specific intent so as to create a genuine issue for trial by jury. Summary
judgment is therefore granted with respect to active inducement by MDx.
B. Contributory Infringement
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), a party is liable for infringement if he “offers to sell or sells
within the United States or imports into the United States ... a material or apparatus for use in
practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to
be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.” Under this
11
statute, a party can be found liable for contributory infringement if that party sells or offers to
sell a part or component that, while not itself infringing, has a particular use in something else
that is covered by a patent. i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 850 (Fed. Cir.
2010) aff'd, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (U.S. 2011).
“In order to succeed on a claim of contributory infringement, in addition to proving an act
of direct infringement, plaintiff must show that defendant ‘knew that the combination for which
its components were especially made was both patented and infringing’ and that defendant's
components have ‘no substantial non-infringing uses.’ ” Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway,
Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
MDx argues that the data it leases to Aetna has substantial non-infringing uses, and that
providing Aetna with a database according to Aetna’s specifications does not amount to
contributory infringement. (ECF No. 490 at 12.) Health Grades responds in its brief with a scant
two paragraphs, arguing that “the Aetna Agreement indicates that MDx creates a ‘custom’ data
extract for Aetna based on MDx’s ‘proprietary’ database.” (ECF No. 525 at 29.) It is entirely
unclear to the Court how Health Grades envisions that this fact demonstrates that there are no
substantial non-infringing uses of the data. In fact, upon review of the evidence submitted by
Health Grades alone, the Court concludes that there are indeed substantial non-infringing uses of
the data.
For instance, Health Grades submits along with its Opposition an Expert Report by Dr.
Philip Greenspun, which takes the reader through how the iTriage app functions. (ECF No. 52511.) Dr. Greenspun’s report reflects an understanding that a results list that emerges in response
12
to a query is actually “the first page of the profile” on a first healthcare provider, which both the
Markman Order and this Court rejected previously. (Id. at 7.) Once inside the report on the first
healthcare provider, the screenshot provided by Health Grades reveals that the iTriage reports
lack some claim elements, such as comparison ratings. Thus, regardless of whether some current
or past iteration of either the iTriage application or website actually infringes upon the ’060
Patent, it is clear from Health Grades’ own evidentiary submissions in response to the instant
motion that that there are substantial non-infringing uses of the data.
Of course, the Court’s prior rulings on literal infringement and prosecution history
estoppel could not be anticipated. Nonetheless, given the restrictions on literal infringement and
on the doctrine of equivalents, the data provided by MDx can be presented in a wide variety of
ways that do not infringe upon the ’060 Patent. Indeed, infringing uses are quite precise and
narrow given the prior rulings, and other presentations and uses which do not infringe are
numerous.
Whether simply data, “custom” data, or a “proprietary database,” (and the parties may
disagree on which of these it is), this Court finds that the information and tools MDx gives to
Aetna do have substantial non-infringing uses. There are many potential uses of this data that
would, for example, not result in a report containing comparison ratings in the manner covered
by the ’060 Patent. Health Grades has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence of
material factual disputes relating to non-infringing uses so as to create a genuine issue for trial by
jury. Summary judgment is therefore granted with respect to contributory infringement by MDx.
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?