Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. E-MDs, Inc.
Filing
495
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court adopts the constructions as set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 05/31/16. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC. ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
E-MDS, INC. ET AL.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 6:14-cv-625
LEAD CASE
ORDER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent
Nos. 5,682,526 (“the ’526 Patent”) and 5,715,451 (“the ’451 Patent”) asserted by Plaintiffs
Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively “Uniloc”). On February 10, 2016,
the parties presented oral arguments on the disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing. For the
reasons stated below, the court ADOPTS the following constructions.
BACKGROUND
In general, both patents relate to methods and systems for processing patient medical
data. The ’526 Patent relates to a system for organizing, recording, and displaying medical
patient information. ’526 Patent Abstract. The patent describes the prior art techniques as
traditionally maintaining information in manual physical “charts.” Id. at 1:18–21.
Such
techniques are stated to be disadvantageous for a number of reasons, including capability to only
view at one location, inability to automatically enter data, illegible information, etc. Id. at 1:30–
38. The patent describes the prior art electronic alternatives as being “rigid” databases which
lacked support for typical medical environments. Id. at 1:40-52. The patent describes these
databases as not including tools for entering and viewing information in the familiar medical
“flowsheet” context and not allowing modification by the health care providers. Id. The ’526
Patent states that a mechanism is disclosed which may customize patient information hierarchy
that defines and organizes the information for each patient and presents patient data flowsheets.
The patient data may be stored according to a hierarchy that may be entered and viewed in a
manner that is optimized for the structure and procedures of the particular health care
organization. 2:1–9. Users may add, modify, and rearrange global or local patient information
parameters that make up the hierarchy. 2:9–11.
The patents are not formally related, however, the ’526 Patent is incorporated by
reference into the ’451 Patent. ’451 Patent at 1:6–11. The ’451 Patent relates generally to a
method and system for constructing formulae for processing medical data. ’451 Patent Abstract.
The system of the ’451 Patent is said to be particularly useful when employed with automated
medical information systems such as that of the ’526 Patent. Id. at 2:53–60. The ’451 Patent
allows users to interact with a formula generation facility in order to construct a formula for a
medical parameter. ’451 Patent at 1:30–38. The facility presents a user with a visual interface
for construction of the formula. Id. at 1:40–46. The formulas may generate values, apply
summary functions, apply logical operators and comparators, and generate higher-level patient
information or even preliminary medical judgements. Id. at 1:50–59.
APPLICABLE LAW
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
Page 2 of 22
the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ ” Id.
(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “[T]he
specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’ ” Id. (quoting Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own
terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes
terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear
disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own
Page 3 of 22
lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’ ” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc.,
362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583).
But,
“[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language
in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not
generally be read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
Page 4 of 22
I.
Agreed Terms
’526 Patent Claim Term
Agreed Construction
patient information hierarchy
an organization of information related to a
patient that is arranged into categories and one
or more subcategories
local parameter
a parameter where each instance of the
parameter is independent from one another and
where each instance of the parameter can have
different values for a given patient
result value
data relating to a patient
result parameter
a parameter that may contain a result value for
a particular patient at a particular time
storing the predetermined result value in
conjunction with the parameter
no construction necessary
’451 Patent Claim Term
the method comprising
I.
Agreed Construction
comprising
Claim Construction of Disputed Terms
1. “parameter” (used at least in asserted claims 2, 4, 5, 10-11, and 13-16 of the ’526
Patent)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
Adopt prior claim construction, “piece of “a data field for patient information”
patient information”
The two issues central to the parties’ dispute over this term are whether a previous
construction should be adopted from a prior case and whether a parameter is a “repository” that
holds patient information or the patient information itself. As to the first dispute, Uniloc argues
that the Court should adopt a separate court’s prior construction and construe “parameter” as a
“piece of patient information.”
Docket No. 395 at 2 (relying on a prior finding that the
specification defines parameter as a piece of patient information). Defendants respond that the
prior construction is not consistent with the parties’ agreed constructions in this case. Docket
Page 5 of 22
No. 392 at 13. Defendants contend that Uniloc’s construction of “parameter” (“piece of patient
information”) is synonymous and indistinguishable from the construction of “result value.” Id.
at 14 (noting that the parties agree that “result value” means “data relating to a patient”). As
Defendants explain, the parties agree that “result parameter” is “a parameter that may contain a
result value for a particular patient at a particular time.” Id. Defendants argue that under
Uniloc’s construction for parameter, the term “result parameter” becomes “a piece of patient
information that may contain a result value…,” which Defendants claim is illogical.
Id.
Defendants argue that “[u]nder Defendants’ construction of “parameter,” a result parameter is “a
data field for patient information that may contain a result value…,” which is plainly
understandable.” Id.
As to the second dispute, Defendants argues that “[w]hen read as a whole, the ’526 patent
describes parameters as something that can be used to store patient information—not as patient
information itself.” Docket No. 392 at 12 (relying on ’526 Patent at 4:28–33, 6:3–8, 7:8–10, Fig.
18, 11:31–52). Uniloc responds that its proposed construction does not exclude the possibility
for a “parameter” to hold information, but that a parameter can also be a “placeholder” that does
not yet have populated information. Docket No. 415 at 22:16–20.
At the hearing, Uniloc proposed “a category or subcategory of patient information.”
Docket No. 415 at 15:7–11. Defendants were concerned that this proposal is too similar to the
agreed construction of “patient information hierarchy,” which the parties agree means “an
organization of information related to a patient that is arranged into categories and one or more
subcategories.” Id. at 17:23–18:7. Defendants also argued that Uniloc’s new proposal does not
distinguish between a parameter and what is stored in a parameter. Id.
Page 6 of 22
On the whole, the specification consistently describes the parameter as not the actual data
but rather the name of the data field within which the actual patient information is placed. See
Figs. 3, 4:60–64 (describing Fig. 3), 6:3–8 (“[a]uthorized users may create new parameters in
order to store and display new pieces of patient information”); see also 7:8–10 4:28–33, 11:32–
33, 11:41–43. However, a parameter does not need to contain information at all time—that is,
Uniloc correctly points out that parameters does not necessarily have to hold patient information
at all times.
Uniloc also expressed concerns that defining parameter as a single “field” may read out
the preferred embodiment of Fig. 4, which lists several “fields” of information for each
parameter. ’526 at 6:28–29 (describing Fig. 4 The parameter definition table 400 contains the
following columns, or fields . . . .”). Defendants submit that multiple “fields” can be a single
field, but to clarify the issue, Defendants agreed to modify their proposed construction to “one or
more a data fields for patient information.” Docket No. 415 at 23:2–3.
Accordingly, the Court construes “parameter” as “one or more data fields for patient
information.”
2. “represent them at a higher conceptual level” (’526 Patent, claim 4)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
group together parameters
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
no construction necessary
Defendants contend that Uniloc improperly changes the phrase “represent” to “group”
and broadens the phrase by removing the phrase “at a higher conceptual level.” Defendants point
to Figure 10 as an example of a flowsheet in which an encapsulating parameter (“Demerol,” red
box) has been expended to show the encapsulated parameters (“dose,” “dose units,” and
“routine,” green box):
Page 7 of 22
’526 Patent Figure 10 (annotated and truncated). Defendants contend that this parameter can
then be collapsed, as shown in Figure 8:
Page 8 of 22
’526 Patent Figure 8 (truncated). Defendants contend that the “Demerol” parameter appears by
itself as shorthand “representing” the encapsulated parameters that describe “dose,” “dose units,”
and “routine”. Docket No. 392 at 18.
Uniloc contends that the Defendants are trying to require that the encapsulating
parameters “indicate something about each and every one of the encapsulating parameters.”
Docket No. 395 at 2. Uniloc contends that the disclosed embodiments allow a user to flexibly
categorize the parameters of patient information in a hierarchy, such that any parameter may be
encapsulated by an encapsulating parameter. Id.
At the hearing, Defendants agreed that their proposal does not require that the
encapsulating parameters must indicate something about each and every one of the encapsulated
parameters (besides the fact that they are represented by an encapsulating parameter at a higher
level). Docket No. 415 at 36:18–37:10. With this understanding, the parties agreed to that no
construction is necessary.
Accordingly, the Court find that no construction is necessary for “represent them at a
higher conceptual level.”
3.
“user” (’526 Patent, claim 1, 2, 4–6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
no construction necessary
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“end user of the computer system”
The parties dispute whether software developers who customize the program, as opposed
to the health care professionals who use the customized product, are considered a “user.”
Defendants do not dispute that the accused products are often customized to the needs of the
health care organization, and that process can be done by internal or external consultants. See
Docket No. 415 at 40:1–15. Defendants claim they are not limiting end-users to healthcare
providers at the point of care, but to any end-user “who can add, modify, and rearrange.” Id. at
Page 9 of 22
41:21–23. Defendants only want to clarify that the software developers who “actually created
that tool, the developers of the software” cannot be users. Id. at 39:11–13. Uniloc contends that
the discovery evidence shows that Defendants use their own software during software
development, testing, certification, training, and demonstrations. Docket No. 395 at 3. Uniloc
further asserts that the Defendants create patient information hierarchies for their respective
customers, using the very same software features a customer would use to create the same. Id.
Defendants’ proposed construction invites confusion by potentially excluding
consultants, software support staff that customize the products at customer demands, and people
who perform quality-control testing, training or run demonstrations. Defendants’ point is well
taken—the people that are building the software are not users unless/until they actually use the
software. However, at what point that happens is not is not clear from the parties’ arguments and
by all accounts is a noninfringement argument (as opposed to an argument over claim scope that
should be resolved with claim construction principles). The ordinary meaning of “user” resolves
Defendants concerns sufficiently well in the context of determining the claim scope. Whether a
particular software developer becomes a user will depend upon the facts of that particular user
and should be decided by a jury.
Accordingly, the Court finds that no construction is necessary for “user.”
4.
“computer system” ( ’526 Patent, at least claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13–16, 18)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“a patient information network programmed not properly before the Court; in the
with software tools that enable a user to alternative, no construction necessary
customize a patient information hierarchy”
The parties generally dispute whether a “computer system” refers to a general-purpose
computer system absent any special programming that facilitates the particular method steps, or
instead whether a “computer system” is limited to a patient information network as Uniloc
Page 10 of 22
proposes. Uniloc asserts that the specification confirms that the computer system must be
programmed with special-purpose software. Specifically, Uniloc asserts that the statement that
the “general-purpose computer upon which the facility preferably operates” confirms that the
“facility” is what makes possible the disclosed operation. Docket No. 384 at 19 (citing ’526 at
2:23–25). Uniloc asserts that the embodiments would not operate on general-purpose computers
alone, absent the specialized programming of the “facility.” Docket No. 395 at 4. Uniloc also
relies on the surrounding claim language for its proposed limitations. See, e.g., Docket No. 384
at 19.
Defendants contend that Uniloc’s proposed construction adds numerous limitations in an
attempt to secure a backdoor reversal of this Court’s Order that Claim 1 of the ’526 Patent is
invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101. Docket No. 392 at 10. For example, Defendants argue that
“Uniloc’s construction renders the surrounding claim language redundant when incorporated into
the claim language itself.” Id. at 11. Defendants also cite support in the specification showing
that a computer system is a normal general-purpose computer system. See, e.g., ’526 Patent at
2:23–26 (“FIG. 1 is a high-level block diagram of the general-purpose computer system upon
which the facility preferably resides.”).
The Court previously looked at this term in the context of Defendants’ prior § 101 motion
and determined that “the Court cannot find… any limiting language that could result in a specific
programming, a special-purpose computer, or any other application of linking that could result in
a construction that adds a non-conventional element to this claim.” Docket No. 315 at 9.
Nothing in Uniloc’s briefs shows why that finding was wrong. The statements Uniloc cites in
the specification are not clear statements of disavowal or disclaimer. In contrast, the patent
expressly states that the computer system could be a “general-purpose computer system upon
Page 11 of 22
which the facility preferably resides.”
’526 Patent 2:23–26.
Additionally, incorporating
“patients” and “hierarchy” are unnecessary as those terms already appear in the various claims.
Accordingly, the Court finds that no construction is necessary for “computer system.”
5.
“flowsheet” (’526 Patent claims 4, 5, 10, 14–16, 18)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“a user-defined template in which patient data “a form in which patient data may be entered
stored according to the patient information and viewed”
hierarchy may be entered and viewed”
The parties dispute whether “hierarchy” should be included in the construction and
whether “template” (or “views” 1) is more appropriate than “form.” Uniloc also wants to clarify
that flowsheets are electronic.
Regarding the hierarchy dispute, a “flowsheet” itself does not necessarily require a
hierarchy; rather once a flowsheet is customized by the user, the customized flowsheet is
described as “defin[ing] views in which patient data stored according to the hierarchy.” ’529
Patent 3:23–29. Additionally, the hierarchy and customization concepts are found elsewhere in
the claims.
As to the “template”/”views” versus “form” dispute, the specification treats templates
different from forms. See, e.g., ’526 Patent at 10:27–29 (distinguishing between a patient
flowsheet and a flowsheet template).
Similarly, the specification states that customized
flowsheets define the hierarchy views. ’526 Patent at 3:25-29 (“[t]he facility further permits
users to customize patient data flowsheets (“flowsheets”), which define views in which patient
data stored according to the hierarchy may be entered and viewed.”).
The specification
separately states what a “flowsheet” is known to be: “Health care providers have traditionally
1
At the hearing, Uniloc proposed using “views” rather than “template.” Docket No. 415 at
70:4–12.
Page 12 of 22
maintained such patient information manually, on physical ‘charts’ comprised of paper forms,
also known as ‘flowsheets.’ ” ’526 Patent at 1:19–23. Also, both parties acknowledge that the
claimed flowsheets are electronic.
See Docket No. 415 at 68:12–14.
Therefore, Uniloc’s
remaining concern—that flowsheets in the context of the claims are in an electronic, not physical
format—is no longer in dispute.
Accordingly, the Court construes “flowsheet” as “a form in which patient data may be
entered and viewed.”
6. “flowsheet group” (’569 Patent claims 10, 15–16, and 18)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“a collection of parameter(s) or placeholder(s) “a group within a form in which patient data
in a flowsheet that are related for purposes of may be entered and viewed”
displaying result values and for adding result
values to those parameter(s) or placeholder(s)” Alternatively: “a collection of parameters or
placeholders in a flowsheet”
At the hearing, the parties agreed to the construction of “a collection of parameters or
placeholders in a flowsheet.” Docket No. 415 at 78:17–19.
Accordingly, the Court construes “flowsheet group” as “a collection of parameters or
placeholders in a flowsheet.”
7. “displayed in conjunction with” (’526 Patent claims 1–3)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“displayed at the same time as”
Defendants contend that “in conjunction with” can have different meanings depending on
the claim in question. Docket No. 415 at 1–11. Defendants contend that in the context of claims
1–3, a parameter can have several possible result values. Docket No. 392 at 14. Claims 2 and 3
depend from claim 1. In claim 1, the term appears as the “linked-to parameters are displayed in
conjunction with the new parameter.” ’526 Patent 13:1–2 (emphasis added). According to
Page 13 of 22
Defendants, when a user creates a new parameter, the user can designate one of its possible result
values as a “linked-from possible result value” and designate “linked-to parameters” to which it
is linked. Docket No. 392 at 14–15.
Defendants contend that if the new parameter has the
linked-from possible result value, the linked-to parameters are “displayed in conjunction with the
new parameter.” Id. at 15. In this context, Defendants argue that “the linked-to parameters are
displayed in conjunction with the new parameter” plainly means the parameters are displayed “at
the same time.” Id.
Defendants argue that the specification supports such a reading:
Users may use a flowsheet to enter one or more result values. … If the user enters
a linked-from result value, the parameters to which the result value are linked are
added to the flowsheet . . . [i]n step 1210, the facility displays the linked-to
parameter and its result values beneath the linked-from parameter. After the
facility processes each linked-to parameter, these steps conclude.
’526 Patent at 9:42–10:17. Defendants contend that when a user enters a result value for a
parameter in a flowsheet, if the result value is a linked-from possible result value, the associated
linked-to parameters will be automatically added to the flowsheet. Docket No. 392 at 15.
Defendants assert that the specification provides an example with regard to the cough parameter:
Entering “productive” (a linked-from result) as the value of the “cough” parameter (the linkedfrom parameter) on the flowsheet causes “sputum color” and “sputum amount” parameters
(linked-to parameters) to be displayed. Id. (citing ’526 Patent at 9:42–10:17, 2:42–43, Fig. 8).
Defendants also point to the prosecution statement to argue that “injunction with means at the
same time.” See Docket No. 392 Ex. D, Response to Office Action, at 6 (“This feature of
Applicants’ invention allows additional parameters to automatically be added to a flowsheet only
when relevant to patient condition as indicated by the particular result value entered for a related
Page 14 of 22
parameter.”).
Finally, Defendants point to an extrinsic evidence dictionary to assert that
“conjunction” means “simultaneous occurrence in space or time.” Docket No. 392 at 16.
Uniloc contends that “in conjunction with” is easily understood by a jury and does not
require construction. Docket No. 395 at 5. Uniloc asserts that “in conjunction with” generally
refers to a logical interrelation, consistent with the specification. See, e.g., ’526 Patent at 4:29–
32 (“[t]he patient information hierarchy is used to organize the parameters, in conjunction with
which pieces of patient information are stored, in a logical organization from which users may
easily select them”), 4:40–41 (stating that the patent will discuss the result table in conjunction
with Fig. 7), 12:25–26 (similar), 12:27–28 (similar), 12:32–33 (similar).
The specification does not necessarily require that the “linked-to parameters” must be
displayed “at the same time” as the “linked-from parameter.”
For example, what if the
parameter added to the flowsheet and displayed (sputum color) was added and displayed but only
immediately displayed and the other parameters (cough) were not. A separate window or box
could open up displaying the linked-to parameters even though the “cough parameter” is no
longer displayed.
Likewise, there is nothing in specification that prevents the linked-to
parameter from being displayed on the next page of the flowsheet. Again, the parameter would
not be “displayed at the same time” in such a scenario. Furthermore, the passages in the
specification and file history which Defendants cite to discuss adding the linked-to parameter
(for example sputum color) to the flow sheet but do not have the explicit “at the same time”
requirement. Docket No. 392 Ex. D, Response to Office Action at 6. Finally, there is no
temporal language in in claim 3 that would require the linked-to parameter to be displayed “at
the same time” as the linked-from parameter. ’526 Patent at 13:16–26.
Page 15 of 22
Accordingly, the Court finds that no construction is necessary for “displayed in conjunction
with.”
8. “computer system” (’451 Patent claims 1, 2)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“one or more programmable electronic devices Not properly before the Court; in the
programmed with a formula construction alternative, no construction necessary
facility having a window-based user interface”
The parties raise generally the same arguments as they do for the term “computer system”
in the ’526 Patent. See Docket No. 415 at 59:22–60:8). The Court finds that no construction is
necessary for the same reasons as discussed above in the context of the ’526 Patent.
Accordingly, the Court finds that no construction is necessary for “computer system.”
9. “formula construction subsystem” (’451 Patent claims 7–8)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
Indefinite
Defendants argue this term, which only appears in claims 7 and 10, is indefinite.
Defendants contend that without reference in the specification, the public is left to guess what is
meant at the very core of the claim, which does not meet the reasonable certainty standard in
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2130 (2014). Docket No. 392 at 28.
Defendants further argue that the claim language itself does not provide sufficient
structure. Docket No. 392 at 29. Defendants note that Claim 7 states that an “apparatus for
constructing a formula” is, in part, comprised of a “formula construction subsystem for
constructing a formula for producing a displayable textual patient information string from a
selected time-indexed medical data variable.” ’451 Patent at claim 7. According to Defendants,
“the only description of or limitation on a “formula construction subsystem” provided by this
claim is that it is “for” constructing a certain type of formula.”
Page 16 of 22
Docket No. 392 at 29.
Defendants state “[s]imilarly, claim 10 recites an “apparatus for constructing a formula”
comprising, in part, “a formula construction subsystem for constructing a formula based on one
or more of the plurality of time-indexed medical values in response to input from a user….” Id.
Finally, Defendants further argue that Claims 7 and 10 are inconsistent. Docket No. 392
at 29.
Specifically, Defendants note that Claim 7 requires the formula for producing the
information string from a single time indexed variable, while Claim 10 requires “a formula based
on one or more of the plurality of time-indexed values.” Id. Defendants assert that these two
different descriptions add further ambiguity. Id.
Uniloc contends that the first element of claim 7 introduces the “formula construction
subsystem” and recites a detailed description of the term. Uniloc contends that each of the other
elements reference “formula construction subsystem,” providing additional context to the term.
Docket No. 384 at 21. As to the differences in claims 7 and 10, Uniloc contends that the fact that
two claims recite distinct limitations does not render the claims indefinite. Docket No 395 at 9.
Uniloc asserts that given the emphasis in the patent on the “facility” software, it is absurd to
argue that the specification is silent concerning a formula construction facility / subsystem. Id.
Uniloc also makes a minor attempt to argue that Defendants waived their right to raise
indefiniteness. Docket No. 384 at 21–22. However, Uniloc does not dispute it was aware that
Defendants claimed this term was indefinite for nearly a year; Uniloc also does not dispute that
Defendants identified this term as indefinite in its disclosures pursuant to P.R. 4-2. See Docket
No. 415 at 80:20–81:18. Given these facts, Defendants have not waived ther right to argue this
term is indefinite.
Nevertheless, the Court rejects Defendants’ arguments on the merits. The claim language
provides context for the “formula construction subsystem” by separately identifying “a formula
Page 17 of 22
construction subsystem,” “a display device,” an “input device,” and “memory,” which together
comprise “the apparatus of constructing . . . a formula.” ’451 Patent claim 7; see also claim 10.
The formula construction subsystem is plainly the software necessary to run the claimed
apparatus.
Furthermore, in context of the specification, the facility refers to the computer
programs or software.
The specification states “[t]he computer programs that preferably
comprise the facility 109.” ’451 Patent at 3:2–3. As shown in Figure 1, the facility 109 is
contained in the memory 103. The ’451 incorporates the ’526 specification, which states that the
facility is comprised of software tools. See ’526 Patent at 3:19–20 (“A patient information
management facility of the patient information (“the facility”) is comprised of software tools.”).
Additionally, claims 7 and 10 are not inconsistent. Claim 7 has a formula based on “a selected”
variable and claim 10 has a formula based on “one or more” variables. In reading the claim
elements in light of the specification, one of ordinary skill would understand the formula
construction subsystem is the apparatus’ software.
In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the term “formula construction subsystem,”
when viewed in light of the claim language and specification, sufficiently informs those skilled
in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The parties’ dispute does
show that construing the term would aid the jury, however. As discussed above, the facility
refers to the software the users interact with to construct the formulae. ’451 claims 7, 10.
Accordingly, the Court construes “formula construction subsystem” as “formula
construction software.”
Page 18 of 22
10. “user” (’451 Patent claims 1, 2, 7, and 8)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
No construction necessary
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
Claims 1 & 2: “end user of the computer
system”
Claims 7 & 8: “end user of the apparatus”
For the same reasons discussed in the context of the ’526 Patent above, the Court finds no
construction necessary.
Accordingly, the Court finds that no construction is necessary for “user.”
11. “window-based user interface” (’451 Patent claims 1, 2 and 7)
Uniloc’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“a working area of a display with special- “user interface with an area of the screen with
purpose devices that enable a user to interact visible boundaries within which information is
with a formula construction facility on the displayed”
computer system”
At the hearing, the Court proposed the following construction: “an area of the display
with visible boundaries within which information may be displayed and entered that enables a
user to interact with a computer system.” Uniloc agreed to the proposed construction with the
change than that “computer system” is replaced with “software program” “or however the Court
construes “the formula construction subsystem” term.
Docket No. 415 at 92:19–93:1.
Defendants “do not necessarily [] disagree” with replacing computer system with software. Id. at
95:1–14.
To be consistent with the construction of “formula construction subsystem” as
“formula construction software” discussed above, the Court will use “software” in the instant
term.
Accordingly, the Court construes “windows-based user interface” as “an area of the
display with visible boundaries within which information may be displayed and entered that
enables a user to interact with software.”
Page 19 of 22
SIGNED this 31st day of May, 2016.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 20 of 22
APPENDIX A
United States Patent Number 5,682,526:
Claim Term
Court’s Construction
“one or more data fields for patient
information”
“parameter”
(used at least in asserted claims 2, 4, 5, 10-11,
and 13-16)
“represent them at a higher conceptual level”
no construction necessary
(used at least in asserted claim 4)
“user”
no construction necessary
(used at least in asserted claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10,
11, 14, 15, and 18)
“computer system”
no construction necessary
(used at least in asserted claims 2, 4, 5, 10-11,
13-16, and 18)
“flowsheet”
(used at least in asserted claims 4, 5, 10, 14-16
and 18)
“flowsheet group”
(used at least in asserted claims 10, 15-16, and
18)
“displayed in conjunction with”
“a form in which patient data may be entered
and viewed”
“a collection of parameters or placeholders in a
flowsheet”
no construction necessary
(used in asserted claim 4)
Claim Term
patient information hierarchy
Agreed Construction
an organization of information related to a
patient that is arranged into categories and one
or more subcategories
local parameter
a parameter where each instance of the
parameter is independent from one another and
where each instance of the parameter can have
different values for a given patient
result value
data relating to a patient
result parameter
a parameter that may contain a result value for
a particular patient at a particular time
Page 21 of 22
storing the predetermined result value in
conjunction with the parameter
no construction necessary
United States Patent Number 5,715,451:
Claim Term
“computer system”
Court’s Construction
no construction necessary
(used in asserted claims 1 and 2)
“formula construction subsystem”
formula construction software
(used in asserted claims 7-8)
“user”
no construction necessary
(used in asserted claims 1, 2, 7, and 8)
“window-based user interface”
(used in asserted claims 1, 2 and 7)
Claim Term
the method comprising
an area of the display with visible boundaries
within which information may be displayed
and entered that enables a user to interact with
software
Agreed Construction
comprising
Page 22 of 22
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?