Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc.
20-2123
| Fed. Cir. | Oct 29, 2021

Background

  • The ’715 patent claims a cardiac-monitoring invention that uses a frequency-domain “T wave filter” to reduce T-wave amplitude (and preserve/amplify R-waves) to improve heartbeat classification.
  • Independent claims at issue: claim 1 (method), claim 11 (system), and claim 20 (apparatus) all recite activating the T wave filter in response to a message from a monitoring station to preprocess a cardiac signal.
  • CardioNet sued InfoBionic for infringement of those claims based on InfoBionic’s MoMe® Kardia system; InfoBionic moved for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent eligibility).
  • The district court denied the § 101 motion (finding an inventive concept because the claims were tied to a machine), and later granted summary judgment of noninfringement for InfoBionic after excluding some of CardioNet’s infringement theories for untimely disclosures.
  • On appeal the Federal Circuit held the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of filtering data (filtering cardiac signals) and do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to confer § 101 eligibility; it vacated the summary judgment order and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of no liability based on unpatentability.
  • The panel emphasized that tying the abstract idea to conventional machines or satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, without more, does not supply the necessary inventive concept; operator decision-making and conventional components weighed against eligibility.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the asserted claims are patent-eligible under § 101 Claims improve cardiac-monitoring technology (specific technical improvement); T wave filter is innovative and not performable mentally Claims are directed to the abstract idea of filtering data (mathematical processing of signals); filter performs routine math and conventional functions Claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept; ineligible under § 101
Whether tying the claims to a machine or satisfying machine-or-transformation saves eligibility Machine-tied claim (apparatus) and satisfies machine-or-transformation; therefore patent-eligible Machine-or-transformation is not dispositive; mere recitation of conventional machine components performing an abstract idea is insufficient Machine-or-transformation alone does not provide an inventive concept; claim remains ineligible
Whether the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement should stand CardioNet: district court erred in granting summary judgment (appealing noninfringement finding) InfoBionic: infringement ruling moot if claims are invalid; district court properly excluded late theories Federal Circuit finds § 101 invalidity dispositive; vacates summary judgment and remands to enter judgment of no liability on unpatentability (noninfringement not reached)

Key Cases Cited

  • Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (two-step framework for § 101 and prohibition on merely applying an abstract idea)
  • Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (requirement of an inventive concept at step two)
  • Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (machine-or-transformation is a useful clue but not dispositive)
  • Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patent-eligibility conclusions may involve underlying factual questions)
  • SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (mathematical computation remains an abstract idea)
  • DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (examples of claims tied to a particular machine/solution that can be eligible)
  • Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (machine-or-transformation does not automatically confer eligibility)
  • FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inability of human mind to perform a claim step alone does not confer patentability)
  • Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (new abstract idea remains abstract)
  • Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (must be a specific improvement in computer functionality, not use of computer as a tool)
  • CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (related Federal Circuit decision addressing different CardioNet claims)
  • CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 816 F. App’x 471 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collecting/analyzing/displaying heart data held an abstract concept implemented with conventional technology)
  • TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that invalidity moots infringement)
  • Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (invalidity judgment moots infringement)
Read the full case