Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-07-1798. |
| Citation | 583 F.Supp.2d 811 |
| Parties | EMTEL, INC., Plaintiff, v. LIPIDLABS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
David P. Griffith, Andrews Kurth LLP, Houston, TX, Brett Thomas Cooke, Andrews Kurth LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Jack Chapline Vaughan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, Charles John Rogers, Thomas L. Warden, Conley Rose, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendants.
This infringement suit involves a patent for a method to provide "telemedicine" using videoconferencing to allow a physician to communicate with a medical care-giver and patient in a remote healthcare facility. The patent holder, Emtel, Inc., alleges that Lipidlabs, Inc., Specialists On Call, Inc., Tele-Med Dox, LLC, and Doctors Telehealth Network, Inc., infringed United States Patent No. 7,129,970, which describes an "Emergency Facility Video-Conferencing System." (Docket Entry No. 1). Specialists On Call, Tele-Med Dox, and Doctors Telehealth Network have moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Lipidlabs has moved for summary judgment, on the basis of immunity from suit under 35 U.S.C. § 287(c). (Docket Entry Nos. 20, 23). Specialists On Call, Tele-Med Dox, and Doctors Telehealth Network have also moved for summary judgment that they do not directly infringe the '970 Patent because all the claimed steps are not performed or controlled by one entity. (Docket Entry No. 21).
This suit raises an issue rarely addressed in the case law: the application of the medical immunity provision of 35 U.S.C. § 287(c) (1). This suit also raises two issues that are the subject of recent cases in the Federal Circuit. One issue involves the application of the standard set out in BMC Resources Inc. v. Paymentech L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir.2007), for direct infringement of business-method patents that require more than one person or entity to perform the claimed steps. The second issue involves the standard for the patentability of business methods under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the limits of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1998). In February 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sua sponte ordered an en banc rehearing in In re Bilski, 2008 WL 417680 (Fed.Cir.2008). Bilski may provide guidance on the extent to which business methods may receive patent law protection.
Based on a careful review of the record, the motions, responses, and replies, the arguments of counsel presented at a hearing, and the applicable law, this court finds that the medical immunity provision of section 287(c) does not apply and denies the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment based on that statute. However, this court grants summary judgment to Specialists On Call, Tele-Med Dox, and Doctors Telehealth Network on the basis that the evidence does not raise a fact issue as to whether a single entity performs or controls the performance of all the claimed elements of the '970 Patent. Because the Federal Circuit case law continues to develop, this court may also examine the impact of In re Bilski after it is issued and the parties have the opportunity to examine the opinion.
Emtel also moved for sanctions against Lipidlabs for failure to comply with the local rules of this district, (Docket Entry No. 26). Emtel's motion for sanctions is denied.
The reasons for these rulings are set out below.
On October 31, 2006, Patent No. 7,129,970 B2 for a "Emergency Facility video-Conferencing System" was issued to Emtel. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. 1). The '970 Patent summarizes the invention as a
video-conferencing arrangement having a mobile emergency center cart that can be positioned as needed within an emergency room or other medical facility and having a video camera enabling a remotely located medical practitioner to selectively and independently control various aspects of the video camera and audio equipment to thus enable the medical practitioner to visualize and communicate with both the patient and the emergency room personnel or closely inspect the physical condition of the patient so that the medical practitioner can diagnose and control the patient's treatment and visually inspect and talk with the patient prior to and during treatment ....
.
The '970 Patent has eight claims; the independent claims are Claims 1 and 4. Claim 1 addresses the remote delivery of medical services through videoconferencing and Claim 4 addresses the remote delivery of emergency medical services through videoconferencing.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A business method for delivery of medical services utilizing a system including a plurality of satellite medical care facilities, at least one physician disposed at a central medical video-conferencing station, and a first patient and a first medical care giver disposed in a first of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) establishing a video-conferencing communications system among said medical video-conferencing station and said plurality of satellite medical care facilities;
(b) selecting said first of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities to actively receive video and audio communication from said physician;
(c) controlling a video-conferencing system of said first of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities to control a video image received at said central medical videoconferencing station from said first of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities;
(d) diagnosing a medical condition of said first patient at said first of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities by said physician from said central medical video-conferencing station;
(e) providing instructions via said video-conferencing system to said first medical caregiver by said physician to treat said first patient at said first of said plurality of satellite medical facilities;
(f) selecting a second of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities to actively receive video and audio communication from said physician;
(g) displaying an image of a second patient disposed at said second of said plurality of satellite emergency care facilities at said central medical video-conferencing station;
(h) controlling a video-conferencing system of said second of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities to control said image received at said central medical video-conferencing station from said second of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities;
(i) diagnosing a medical condition of said second patient by said physician from said central medical videoconferencing station; and
(j) providing instructions via said video-conferencing system to a second medical caregiver disposed at said second of said plurality of satellite medical care facilities by said physician to treat said second patient generally contemporaneously with said steps of diagnosing said medical condition of said first patient and providing instructions to said first medical caregiver.
.
Claim 4 states as follows:
A business method for delivery of emergency medical services utilizing a system including first and second emergency care facilities, an emergency room physician disposed at an emergency medical video-conferencing station, a first patient and a first skilled medical caregiver disposed at said first emergency care facility, and a second patient and a second skilled medical caregiver disposed at said second emergency care facility, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) establishing a first video-conferencing communication link between said emergency medical video-conferencing station and said first emergency care facility;
(b) establishing a second video-conferencing communication link between said emergency medical video-conferencing station and said second emergency care facility;
(c) displaying an image of said first patient on a first monitor disposed in said emergency medical video-conferencing station via said first video-conferencing communication link;
(d) viewing said image of said first patient by said emergency room physician;
(e) controlling a video-camera disposed in said first emergency care facility from said emergency medical video-conferencing station to control said image of said first patient;
(f) aiding a treatment of a medical condition of said first patient at said first emergency care facility by said emergency room physician from said emergency medical video-conferencing station;
(g) displaying an image of said second patient at said emergency video-conferencing station via said second video-conferencing communication link;
(h) controlling a video-camera disposed in said second emergency care facility from said emergency medical videoconferencing station to control said image of said second patient; and
(i) aiding a treatment of a medical condition of said second patient at said second emergency care facility from said emergency medical video-conferencing station contemporaneously with said step of aiding the treatment of said first patient.
Specialists on Call, Tele-Med Dox, and Doctors Telehealth Network (together, movants) provide what they characterize as "telemedicine support services" in the form of videoconferencing network links. The movants enter into contracts with physicians or physician groups who agree to work as independent contractors in providing diagnostic and treatment services. The movants also enter into contracts with remote medical-care facilities under which the movants agree to provide outsourced videoconferenced medical services through the affiliated physicians or physician groups.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Reece
...an indication Congress Intended them to bear some different import.” 9.Amberg v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 934 F.2d 681, 688 (5th Cir.1991). 10.Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc., 583 F.Supp.2d 811, 820 (S.D.Tex.2008), quoting Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed......
-
CBA Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Toll Bros. Inc.
...or to prescribe alterations and deviations....’ " Two-Way Media. , 2015 WL 2375805, at *5 (quoting Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc. , 583 F. Supp. 2d 811, 837 (S.D. Tex. 2008) ). Here, the PAC is entirely devoid of allegations of Toll Bros. doing something "more" to control the work of its co......
-
Zamora Radio Llc v. Last.Fm
...facilitating or arranging for the third party's involvement in the alleged infringement is not sufficient.” Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc., 583 F.Supp.2d 811, 839 (S.D.Tex.2008); Muniauction, 532 F.3d at 1329–30. Here, it is undisputed that there is nothing akin to an agency relationship be......
-
Zamora Radio Llc v. Last.Fm
...facilitating or arranging for the third party's involvement in the alleged infringement is not sufficient.” Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc., 583 F.Supp.2d 811, 839 (S.D.Tex.2008); Muniauction, 532 F.3d at 1329–30. Every asserted system claim of the '399 Patent requires, among other things, a......
-
After The Supreme Court's Limelight Decision, Attention May Shift To Contract Analysis In Patent Cases
...the freedom to act independently. But what if such freedom is constrained? In a lengthy opinion in Emtel, Inc. v. LipidLabs, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Tex. 2008), the court reasoned [A] right of control requires more than a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspec......
-
The Incredibly Ever-Shrinking Theory of Joint Infringement: Multi-Actor Method Claims
...No. CV 07-5213-CAS (AGRx), CV 08-1801-CAS (AGRx), 2008 WL 4906115, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2008); Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 811, 829 (S.D. Tex. 2008); Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 90, 120 (D. Mass. 2009). 341Akamai Techs., Inc., 61......
-
Chapter §3.07 Remedies Exclusion for Medical/Surgical Procedures
...pertaining to 35 U.S.C. §287(c) and only a single federal district court decision that did. See Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (denying §287(c) medical immunity to defendant providers of video conferencing network link, accused of infringing patented me......