111 F. Supp. 3d 346
W.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Medgraph sues Medtronic over two health-care patents: US 5,974,124 ('124) and US 6,122,351 ('351).
- Patents cover data collection, storage, and remote transmission of patient data to physicians; '124 also claims a system.
- CareLink System allegedly enables diabetes patients to upload readings and generate graphs accessible to patient and physician.
- Procedural history involves Akamai-related issues; court grants Medtronic summary-judgment motion and dismisses complaint.
- Court distinguishes method vs. system claims and addresses direct vs. indirect infringement, with focus on Muniauction/Akamai line of cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct infringement of method claims | Medgraph contends Medtronic directly infringes all steps. | Medtronic argues it does not perform all steps; no single actor directly infringes. | Direct infringement for method claims is not shown; dismissed. |
| Indirect infringement (induced/contributory) for method claims | Medgraph asserts induced infringement via CareLink usage by patients/doctors. | No direct infringement predicate; no inducement or contributory infringement without direct infringement. | Summary judgment for Medtronic; no indirect infringement established. |
| System claim infringement (Claim 16) analysis | CareLink meets input/output means and dual transmission modes (internet and fax). | CareLink lacks fax/telephone input path; term 'and' should not be read as requiring both modes simultaneously. | CareLink does not infringe Claim 16; two-way fax transmission not present; 'and' construed as 'and'. |
| Claim construction of 'and' in system claim | And may mean or, covering high-tech and low-tech embodiments. | Context shows 'and' means both input paths and both output paths. | 'And' means 'and' (not 'or'); patent requires dual input and dual output paths. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai I), 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (direct infringement requires a single actor to perform all steps)
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai II), 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (induced infringement requires all steps; not necessary to prove a single direct infringer)
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai III), 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) (supreme court reverses on §271(b); must be direct infringement for inducement)
- Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai TV), 786 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (divided infringement and master-mind control analysis reaffirmed)
- Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (direct infringement requires a single actor for all steps; control over process can attribute liability)
- BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (mastermind/directed efforts can support divided infringement under appropriate theory)
- Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (direct infringement requires complete invention by the accused party)
- Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (literal infringement requires all claim limitations present)
- Korn/Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (contributory infringement requires no substantial non-infringing uses)