Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc

955 F.3d 1358

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2020-04-17
Topic: bankruptcy

concluding that claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying cardiac data are abstract concepts | noting that it is permissible for a court to look to extrinsic evidence in assessing a step one question | holding that the claims “focus on a specific means or method that improves cardiac monitoring technology; they are not directed to a result or effect that itself is the ab- stract idea and merely invoke generic processes and ma- chinery” (quotation marks and citation omitted) | holding at step one that claims on a cardiac monitoring device were not directed to an abstract idea because the device more accurately detected cardiac arrythmias by analyzing variability in beat-to-beat timing | instructing courts to be “careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims[] by looking at them generally and failing to account for [] specific requirements” | noting the patent described the benefits of the claimed device and finding that the district court erred when it did not draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor | noting the “important” role the specification plays in “inform[ing] [the court’s] understanding of the claims” and determining how “the claimed invention achieves multiple technological improvements” over the prior art.” | explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for im- proving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not “di- rected to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery” (quot- ing McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314) | finding claims non-abstract where they were sufficiently “directed to technological 27 improvements” | “[W]e 26 conclude that claim 1 of the ’207 patent is directed to an improved cardiac monitoring device and 27 not to an abstract idea.” | claims eligible where they used a specific sensor configuration and signal-processing logic to improve detection of atrial fibrillation over conventional monitors | “[T]he district court erred by disregarding the written description's recitation of the advantages of the claimed invention.” | on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “all factual inferences drawn from the specification” are made in favor of the non-movant | “At step one, we consider the claims ‘in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” (citations omitted) | “At step one, we consider the claims ‘in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” (emphasis added | “At step one, we consider the 23 claims in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded 24 subject matter” | “[O]ur analysis at Alice step one involves examining the patent claims in view of the plain claim language, statements in the written description, and the prosecution history, if relevant.” | “The Supreme Court has identified three types of subject matter that are not patent- eligible: ‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas[.]’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 216) | “In determining what the claims are directed to and whether they are directed to an abstract idea, a court may well consult the plain claim language, written description, and prosecution history[.]” | “In determining what the claims are directed to and whether they are directed to an abstract idea, a court may well consult the plain claim language, written description, and prosecution history.” | “In determining what the claims are directed to and whether they are directed 28 to an abstract idea, a court may well consult the plain claim language, written description, 1 and prosecution history.” | “[S]tep one of the Alice framework does not require an evaluation of the prior art or facts outside of the intrinsic record regarding the state of the art at the time of the invention. | claims 3 “directed to a specific technological improvement—an improved medical device that achieves 4 speedier, more accurate, and clinically signif

Citator

Cited by: 31 opinions

Case: 19-1149   Document: 56     Page: 1   Filed: 04/17/2020




   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

 CARDIONET, LLC, BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING,
                      LLC,
              Plaintiffs-Appellants

                            v.

                  INFOBIONIC, INC,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2019-1149
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Massachusetts in No. 1:17-cv-10445-IT, Judge
 Indira Talwani.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 17, 2020
                 ______________________

    CHING-LEE FUKUDA, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY,
 argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by
 BRADFORD J. BADKE, TODD MATTHEW SIMPSON; NATHAN A.
 GREENBLATT, Palo Alto, CA.

    GABRIEL BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT; CHARLES SANDERS, Boston, MA.
                 ______________________

      Before DYK, PLAGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-1149     Document: 56      Page: 2    Filed: 04/17/2020




2                            CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC




      Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.
    Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in the result
                 filed by Circuit Judge DYK.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
      CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC
 (collectively, “CardioNet”) appeal the district court’s dis-
 missal of their patent infringement complaint against In-
 foBionic, Inc. The district court held that the asserted
 claims of CardioNet’s

U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207

 are ineli-
 gible under

35 U.S.C. § 101

, and therefore the complaint
 failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
 dure 12(b)(6). We conclude instead that the asserted
 claims of the ’207 patent are directed to a patent-eligible
 improvement to cardiac monitoring technology and are not
 directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, we reverse the
 district court and remand for further proceedings.
                         BACKGROUND
                                I
      Anomalies in the electrical activity of a patient’s heart
 can indicate the presence of certain physiological condi-
 tions ranging from benign to life-threatening. Among those
 conditions are various different types of cardiac arrythmias
 (abnormal heart rhythms), including atrial fibrillation,
 atrial flutter, normal sinus rhythm irregularity, irregular-
 ity from various types of heart blocks, irregularity associ-
 ated with premature ventricular contractions, and
 ventricular tachycardia.
     Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter involve “the loss of
 synchrony between the atria and the ventricles” of the
 heart. ’207 patent col. 1 ll. 24–25, 34–35. A patient may
 experience “short” or “sustained” episodes of atrial fibrilla-
 tion or atrial flutter. Short episodes “generally include be-
 tween two and 20 [heart]beats and may or may not have
 clinical significan[ce].”

Id.

 at col. 5 ll. 33–35. By contrast,
Case: 19-1149     Document: 56       Page: 3    Filed: 04/17/2020




 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC                             3



 sustained episodes “generally include more than 20 beats
 and may have relatively greater clinical significance.”

Id.

 at col. 5 ll. 35–37. Atrial fibrillation “can lead to irregular
 ventricular beating as well as blood stagnation and clotting
 in the atria.”

Id.

 at col. 1 ll. 27–28. Both atrial fibrillation
 and atrial flutter are “associated with stroke, congestive
 heart failure, and cardiomyopathy.”

Id.

 at col. 1 ll. 31–32,
 40–42.
     Ventricular tachycardia, or V-TACH, is another form of
 cardiac arrythmia and is characterized by “a rapid succes-
 sion of ventricular contractions (e.g., between 140 and 220
 per minute) generally caused by an abnormal focus of elec-
 trical activity in a ventricle.”

Id.

 at col. 9 ll. 41–44. Ven-
 tricular beats “are irregular beats that interrupt the
 normal heart rhythm” and that “may be precipitated by
 factors such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and stress.”

Id.

 at col. 9 ll. 10–12, 19–20. The “occurrence of ventricular
 beats can be used to identify ventricular tachycardia (e.g.,
 when there are three or more consecutive ventricular
 beats).”

Id.

 at col. 9 ll. 16–19. V-TACH “can last from a
 few seconds to several days and can be caused by serious
 heart conditions such as a myocardial infarction.”

Id.

 at col. 9 ll. 44–46.
     The ’207 patent is titled “Cardiac Monitoring” and
 claims priority to an application filed on January 21, 2004.
 The ’207 patent describes cardiac monitoring systems and
 techniques for detecting and distinguishing atrial fibrilla-
 tion and atrial flutter from other various forms of cardiac
 arrythmia. Electrical signals of the heart can be measured
 by placing electrodes on a patient’s skin.

Id.

 at col. 1 ll. 17–
 20, col. 5 ll. 1–7. The patent teaches that its systems and
 techniques determine the beat-to-beat variability in heart
 rate over a series of successive heartbeats. Specifically,
 they determine the variability in heart rate “over a series
 of between 20 and 200 of the recent R to R intervals,” or the
 timing between “R-waves.”

Id.

 at col. 2 ll. 4–6, 47–49. An
 R-wave is the peak of what is referred to as the “QRS
Case: 19-1149     Document: 56      Page: 4     Filed: 04/17/2020




4                             CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC




 complex” of an electrocardiogram signal, as illustrated in
 Figure 2 below. The QRS complexes (items 215, 220, and
 225 of Figure 2) of the signal correspond to the contractions
 of the ventricles.

Id.

 at col. 4 ll. 53–58.

Id.

 Fig. 2. A schematic of the ’207 patent’s cardiac moni-
 toring system is shown below in Figure 8:

Id.

 Fig. 8. The written description explains that in detect-
 ing atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, the systems and
 techniques include accounting for the presence of irregular
 ventricular beats, which are “negatively indicative” of
 atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.

Id.

 at col. 1 ll. 61–65,
 col. 2 ll. 53–61. The patent recognizes that the “occurrence
 of ventricular beats is generally unrelated to” atrial
Case: 19-1149     Document: 56       Page: 5    Filed: 04/17/2020




 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC                             5



 fibrillation and atrial flutter, whereas it is indicative of V-
 TACH.

Id.

 at col. 9 ll. 15–19. The patent’s systems and
 techniques also analyze information regarding the time pe-
 riod between ventricular contractions (i.e., the R to R inter-
 val) to detect atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter using non-
 linear statistical approaches.

Id.

 at col. 1 ll. 49–54, col. 5
 ll. 40–44. Figure 10 depicts an embodiment of the ’207 pa-
 tent’s system employing these techniques:

Id.

 Fig. 10.
Case: 19-1149     Document: 56      Page: 6    Filed: 04/17/2020




6                            CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC




     Claims 1–3, 7, 10–12, and 22 are at issue on appeal.
 The claims are drawn to a device for detecting and report-
 ing the presence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in a
 patient. Specifically, the device detects beat-to-beat timing
 of cardiac activity, detects premature ventricular beats (ir-
 regular beats that interrupt the normal heart rhythm), 1
 and determines the relevance of the beat-to-beat timing to
 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, taking into account the
 variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature
 ventricular beats.
     Independent claim 1 recites:
     1. A device, comprising:
     a beat detector to identify a beat-to-beat timing of
     cardiac activity;
     a ventricular beat detector to identify ventricular
     beats in the cardiac activity;
     variability determination logic to determine a var-
     iability in the beat-to-beat timing of a collection of
     beats;
     relevance determination logic to identify a rele-
     vance of the variability in the beat-to-beat timing
     to at least one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flut-
     ter; and
     an event generator to generate an event when the
     variability in the beat-to-beat timing is identified
     as relevant to the at least one of atrial fibrillation



     1   For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the district
 court adopted CardioNet’s construction of the term “ven-
 tricular beats” to mean “premature ventricular beats that
 are irregular beats that interrupt the normal heart
 rhythm.” CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.,

348 F. Supp. 3d 87

, 96 n.4 (D. Mass. 2018) (citation omitted).
Case: 19-1149      Document: 56      Page: 7   Filed: 04/17/2020




 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC                             7



     and atrial flutter in light of the variability in the
     beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats
     identified by the ventricular beat detector.