Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC

Decision Date16 June 2017
Docket Number2016-1766
Citation859 F.3d 1352
Parties The CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, Cleveland Heartlab, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants v. TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS LLC, Defendant–Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Lawrence D. Rosenberg , Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Susan M. Gerber , Cleveland, OH.

Adam Louis Marchuk , Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Michael Robert Osterhoff, Mark T. Smith, Caroline Ayres Teichner ; Dan L. Bagatell , Hanover, NH.

Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.

Reyna, Circuit Judge.

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Cleveland Heartlab, Inc. accused True Health Diagnostics LLC of infringement of three patents that claim methods for testing for myeloperoxidase in a bodily sample and a fourth patent that claims a method for treating a patient that has cardiovascular disease. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found that the asserted claims of the three testing patents are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter and that Cleveland Clinic failed to state a claim of contributory or induced infringement of the fourth patent. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation developed methods for detecting the risk of cardiovascular disease in a patient. When an artery is damaged or inflamed, the body releases the enzyme myeloperoxidase, or MPO, in response. MPO is an early symptom of cardiovascular disease, and it can thus serve as an indicator of a patient's risk of cardiovascular disease.

The prior art taught that MPO could be detected in an atherosclerotic plaque or lesion that required a surgically invasive method. Another prior art method indirectly detected for MPO in blood. Yet another known method could detect MPO in blood but yielded results that were not predictive of cardiovascular disease. The inventors here purportedly discovered how to "see" MPO in blood and correlate that to the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The patents disclose methods for detecting MPO and correlating the results to cardiovascular risk.1 The patents disclose that "[m]yeloperoxidase activity may be determined by any of a variety of standard methods known in the art." E.g. , J.A. 39 at col. 8 ll. 32–33. These methods include colorimetric-based assay, flow cytometry, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ("ELISA"). Additionally, the patents disclose MPO detection kits modified from commercially available kits "by including, for example, different cut-offs, different sensitivities at particular cut-offs, as well as instructions or other printed material for characterizing risk based upon the outcome of the assay." E.g. , J.A. 38 at col. 6 ll. 21–24.

In addition to ways to "see" MPO, the inventors developed a way to correlate MPO with risk of developing cardiovascular disease. To do this, the inventors compiled MPO data from a population to create a "predetermined" or "control" value. Then, using statistical methods, the inventors analyzed the data based on whether the person was "apparently healthy" or had some cardiovascular disease. E.g. , J.A. 45 at col. 20 ll. 32–43. Diagnosers could then use this data to determine whether a patient presents a risk of cardiovascular disease :

If the level of the present risk predictor in the test subject's bodily sample is greater than the predetermined value or range of predetermined values, the test subject is at greater risk of developing or having [cardiovascular disease ] than individuals with levels comparable to or below the predetermined value or predetermined range of values.

J.A. 46 at col. 21 ll. 37–42.

The '552 patent claims methods for characterizing a test subject's risk for cardiovascular disease by determining levels of MPO in a bodily sample and comparing that with the MPO levels in persons not having cardiovascular disease. The dependent claims limit the way MPO is detected and how the MPO values in the control subjects are evaluated. The district court analyzed claims 11, 14, and 15, which provide:

11. A method of assessing a test subject's risk of having atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, comprising
comparing levels of myeloperoxidase in a bodily sample from the test subject with levels of myeloperoxidase in comparable bodily samples from control subjects diagnosed as not having the disease, said bodily sample being blood, serum, plasma, blood leukocytes selected from the group consisting of neutrophils, monocytes, sub-populations of neutrophils, and sub-populations of monocytes, or any combination thereo[f];
wherein the levels of myeloperoxidase in the bodily from the test subject relative to the levels of [m]yeloperoxidase in the comparable bodily samples from control subjects is indicative of the extent of the test subject's risk of having atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

J.A. 50 at col. 30 ll. 48–62.

14. A method of assessing a test subject's risk of developing a complication of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease comprising:
determining levels of myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity, myeloperoxidase (MPO) mass, or both in a bodily sample of the test subject, said bodily sample being blood, serum, plasma, blood leukocytes selected from the group consisting of neutrophils and monocytes, or any combination thereof;
wherein elevated levels of MPO activity or MPO mass or both in the test subject's bodily sample as compared to levels of MPO activity, MPO mass, or both, respectively in comparable bodily samples obtained from control subjects diagnosed as not having the disease indicates that the test subject is at risk of developing a complication of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

J.A. 51 at col. 31 ll. 8–23.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein the test subject's risk of developing a complication of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is determined by comparing levels of my[elo]peroxidase mass in the test subject's bodily sample to levels of myeloperoxidase mass in comparable samples obtained from the control subjects.

J.A. 51 at col. 31 ll. 24–29.

The '286 patent and '581 patent further claim ways of detecting MPO. The dependent claims of the '286 patent limit MPO detection by flow cytometry and further require detection of another compound, troponin. Other dependent claims of the '286 patent and '581 patent require detection of MPO byproducts. The district court analyzed claims 21 and 22 of the '286 patent and claim 5 of the '581 patent, which provide:

21. A method of assessing the risk of requiring medical intervention in a patient who is presenting with chest pain, comprisingcharacterizing the levels of myeloperoxidase activity, myeloperoxidase mass, or both, respectively in the bodily sample from the human patient, wherein said bodily sample is blood or a blood derivative,
wherein a patient whose levels of myeloperoxidase activity, myeloperoxidase mass, or both is characterized as being elevated in comparison to levels of myeloperoxidase activity, myeloperoxidase mass or both in a comparable bodily samples obtained from individuals in a control population is at risk of requiring medical intervention to prevent the occurrence of an adverse cardiac event within the next six months.

J.A. 71 at col. 23 l. 45–col. 24 l. 10.

22. A method of determining whether a patient who presents with chest pain is at risk of requiring medical intervention to prevent an adverse cardiac event within the next six months comprising:
comparing the level of a risk predictor in a bodily sample from the subject with a value that is based on the level of said risk predictor in comparable samples from a control population, wherein said risk predictor is myeloperoxidase activity, myeloperoxidase mass, a myeloperoxidase-generated oxidation product, or any combination thereof, and wherein said bodily sample is blood, serum, plasma, or urine,
wherein a subject whose bodily sample contains elevated levels of said risk predictor as compared to the control value is at risk of requiring medical intervention to prevent an adverse cardiac event within 6 months of presenting with chest pain, and
wherein the difference between the level of the risk predictor in the patient's bodily sample and the level of the risk predictor in a comparable bodily sample from the control population establishes the extent of the risk to the subject of requiring medical intervention to prevent an adverse cardiac event within the next six months.

J.A. 71 at col. 24 ll. 11–33.

5. A method of determining whether a patient who presents with chest pain is at risk of requiring medical intervention to prevent an adverse cardiac event within the next six months comprising:
determining the level of risk predictor in a bodily sample from the subject, wherein said risk predictor is myeloperoxidase activity, myeloperoxidase mass, a myeloperoxidase (MPO)-generated oxidation product or any combination thereof,
wherein said bodily sample is blood, serum, plasma or urine,
wherein said myeloperoxidase-generated oxidation product is nitrotyrosine or a myeloperoxidase-generated lipid peroxidation product selected from [list of products] or any combination thereof, and
comparing the level of said risk predictor in the bodily sample of the patient to the level of said risk predictor in comparable samples obtained from a control population,
wherein a subject whose bodily sample contains elevated levels of said risk predictor as compared to the control value is at risk of requiring medical intervention to prevent an adverse cardiac event within 6 months of presenting with chest pain.

J.A. 86 at col. 20 ll. 12–50.

The '260 patent builds on these patents and requires administration of a lipid lowering drug to a patient at risk of cardiovascular disease. Claim 1 of the '260 patent recites:

1. A method for administering a lipid lowering agent to a human patient based on elevated levels of myeloperoxidase (MPO) mass and/or
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
138 cases
  • Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 23, 2018
    ...induced infringement, a plaintiff must prove specific intent and action to induce infringement. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017). TTI points to evidence that approximately eighty percent of Ryobi GDO purchasers do not use rechargea......
  • Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • February 6, 2019
    ...or merely an ineligible concept, based on both the written description and the claims. See Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC , 859 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ; Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc. , 827 F.3d 1042, 1047–49 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Ariosa Diagnost......
  • British Telecommunications PLC v. Iac/Interactive Corp
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • February 4, 2019
    ...1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corp. , 726 F. App'x 797 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC , 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("[W]e have repeatedly affirmed § 101 rejections at the motion to dismiss stage, before claim construct......
  • Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • July 3, 2019
    ...focused on detecting new and useful natural laws with conventional steps to be ineligible. E.g. , Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC , 859 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2621, 201 L.Ed.2d 1026 (2018) ; Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Claims Directed To Detecting Natural Phenomena Using Conventional Techniques Are Patent Ineligible
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 28, 2023
    ...analyzed conventionality at step one as well' (the Court referred to Athena, 915 F.3d 743, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Cleveland Clinic, 859 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). 'Indeed, we have explained that 'the two stages are plainly related: not only do many of our opinions make clear that ......
  • The Trouble With IP For Digital Health And Precision Medicine
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 20, 2022
    ...steps requiring the performance of an assay followed by administering a drug. See Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Court here also noted that a "party that provides a service, but no 'material or apparatus,' cannot be liable for con......
5 books & journal articles
  • Attorney-Client Privilege for In-House Counsel
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-2, November 2017
    • November 1, 2017
    ...on which the PTAB declined to institute review in a prior CBM proceeding. The Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC , 859 F.3d 1352, 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the patentee’s amended complaint for fai......
  • Chapter §3.02 Processes Within §101
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 3 Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
    • Invalid date
    ...See Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 2511 (2016) (order denying petition for writ of certiorari).[545] 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017).[546] Cleveland Clinic's asserted testing patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,223,552; 7,459,286; and 8,349,581.[547] Representative claim ......
  • PATENTLY RISKY: FRAMING, INNOVATION, AND ENTREPRENEURIAL PREFERENCES.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 34 No. 1, September 2020
    • September 22, 2020
    ...held that the Mayo test also prohibited patenting abstract ideas. (2.) See, e.g., Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics, 859 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2621 (2018) (finding a testing process created by the Cleveland Clinic to determine the risk f......
  • Decisions in Brief
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-2, November 2017
    • November 1, 2017
    ...on which the PTAB declined to institute review in a prior CBM proceeding. The Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC , 859 F.3d 1352, 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the patentee’s amended complaint for fai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT