Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 1 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`CARDIONET, LLC, BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING,
`LLC,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`INFOBIONIC, INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2020-1018
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, Judge
`Indira Talwani.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: July 1, 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; RYAN C. MORRIS, Washington,
`DC.
`
` MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, Latham & Watkins LLP, Wash-
`ington, DC, argued
`for defendant-appellee.
` Also
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 2 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`2
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`by GABRIEL BELL, DIANE GHRIST;
`represented
`CHRISTOPHER HENRY, CHARLES SANDERS, Boston, MA.
` ______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, DYK, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC
`(collectively “CardioNet”) appeal from a decision of the
`United States District Court for the District of Massachu-
`setts holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents
`7,212,850 (“’850 patent”) and 7,907,996 (“’996 patent”) are
`ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CardioNet,
`LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, 2018 WL
`1542051 (D. Mass. Mar. 29, 2018); see also CardioNet, LLC
`v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, 2018 WL
`1788650, at *7 (D. Mass. May 4, 2017). Because the district
`court did not err, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`The parties to this appeal are competitors in the field
`of mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT). MCT devices monitor
`the electrical activity of a patient’s heart over an extended
`period of time, analyze the data for anomalies in the elec-
`trical activity, such as cardiac arrhythmias, and wirelessly
`transmit the data to a remote monitoring station for stor-
`age or further analysis. According to CardioNet, continu-
`ous monitoring of cardiac electrical signals generates an
`enormous amount of information—more than can practi-
`cally be analyzed by a medical technician or physician in
`real-time. The ’850 and ’996 patents (collectively “the as-
`serted patents”) purport to address this problem by analyz-
`ing and displaying cardiac
`information relating to
`arrhythmia events and validating the accuracy of the in-
`formation based on human review of only a small subset of
`the collected data.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 3 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`3
`
`The asserted patents, which derive from the same pro-
`visional application and share a substantially identical
`written description, describe systems and methods “for pre-
`senting information relating to heart data.” ’850 patent
`Abstract.1 A “monitoring system” collects heart rate data
`and analyzes the data to identify arrhythmia events. Id.
`col. 3 ll. 8–16. A subset of the collected data is presented
`to a cardiovascular technician separately to identify ar-
`rhythmia events. Id. col. 3 ll. 18–22. A “processing sys-
`tem” then compares the events automatically identified by
`the monitoring system with the human identified events
`and, if enough of the human identified events match the
`automatically identified events, the system determines
`that the data are valid. Id. col. 4 ll. 52–56. If the data are
`determined to be valid, the processing system displays a
`graph that includes heart rate data as well as “atrial fibril-
`lation burden,” which refers to “the overall amount of time
`that a patient is in atrial fibrillation (or arrhythmia) over
`a specified time period.” Id. col. 3 ll. 37–42. Figure 2 shows
`an example of such a graph:
`
`
`1 Because the ’850 and ’996 patents share a substan-
`tially identical written description, all citations are to the
`’850 patent unless specified otherwise.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 4 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`4
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`According to the patents, by determining the validity of the
`automatically analyzed data based on a human assessment
`of only a subset of the data, “the system achieves increased
`accuracy in the presentation of information relating to ar-
`rhythmia events while minimizing the data that the [tech-
`nician] reviews.” Id. col. 4 ll. 61–64.
`The district court treated claim 31 of the ’850 patent
`and claim 12 of the ’996 patent as representative of those
`asserted, and CardioNet does not challenge that determi-
`nation on appeal. Claim 31 of the ’850 patent recites:
`31. A system for reporting information related to
`arrhythmia events comprising:
`a monitoring system configured to process and re-
`port physiological data, including heart rate data,
`for a living being and configured to identify ar-
`rhythmia events from the physiological data;
`a monitoring station for receiving the physiological
`data from the monitoring system;
`a processing system configured to receive arrhyth-
`mia information from the monitoring system and
`configured to receive human-assessed arrhythmia
`information from the monitoring station wherein
`the human-assessed arrhythmia information de-
`rives from at least a portion of the physiological
`data and wherein the processing system is capable
`of pictographically presenting, using a common
`time scale, information regarding the heart rate
`data during a defined time period and regarding
`duration of arrhythmia event activity, according to
`the identified arrhythmia events, during the de-
`fined time period such that heart rate trend is pre-
`sented with arrhythmia event burden.
`’850 patent col. 9 ll. 40–60.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 5 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`5
`
`Claim 12 of the ’996 patent recites similar subject mat-
`ter:
`12. An article comprising a machine-readable me-
`dium embodying information indicative of instruc-
`tions that when performed by one or more
`machines result in operations comprising:
`identifying atrial fibrillation events in physiologi-
`cal data obtained for a living being, wherein iden-
`tifying atrial
`fibrillation
`events
`comprises
`examining the physiological data in multiple time
`intervals, and identifying intervals in which at
`least one atrial fibrillation event has occurred;
`obtaining heart rate data for the living being;
`receiving a human assessment of a subset of the
`identified atrial fibrillation events; and
`based on the human assessment of the subset of the
`identified atrial fibrillation events, pictograph-
`ically presenting, using a common time scale, infor-
`mation regarding the heart rate data for the
`multiple time intervals during a defined time pe-
`riod in alignment with indications of atrial fibrilla-
`tion activity for the identified intervals, according
`to the identified atrial fibrillation events, during
`the defined time period such that heart rate trend
`is presented with atrial
`fibrillation burden,
`wherein pictographically presenting information
`regarding the heart rate data comprises displaying
`for each of the multiple time intervals a range of
`heart rates and a heart rate average.
`’996 patent col. 6 l. 53–col. 7 l. 11.
`CardioNet asserted the ’850 and ’996 patents, as well
`as two other CardioNet patents not at issue in this appeal,
`against InfoBionic in the United States District Court for
`the District of Massachusetts. See Complaint & Jury
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 6 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`6
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`Demand, CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-
`11803-IT (D. Mass. May 8, 2015), ECF No. 1. InfoBionic
`moved for judgment on the pleadings that the asserted
`claims of the ’850 and ’996 patents are ineligible for patent
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court initially ad-
`dressed claim 31 of the ’850 patent and claim 12 of the ’996
`patent as the only claims specifically cited in CardioNet’s
`complaint. The court considered the claims under the Su-
`preme Court’s two-step Alice framework for determining
`patent-eligibility. At step one, the court held that the
`claims are directed to the abstract idea of “correlating one
`set of data to another.” CardioNet, 2018 WL 1788650, at
`*7. At step two, the court concluded that the claims do not
`include an inventive concept because they only implement
`the traditional practice in the medical field of seeking a sec-
`ond opinion using conventional hardware. Id. at 15–16.
`After soliciting additional briefing from the parties, the
`court determined that claim 31 of the ’850 patent and claim
`12 of the ’996 patent are representative of the asserted
`claims and entered partial final judgment under Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 54(b) that all asserted claims of the ’850 and ’996
`patents are ineligible under § 101. CardioNet, 2018 WL
`1542051, at *7.
`CardioNet appealed. We have jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We review a district court’s grant of judgment on the
`pleadings under Rule 12(c) according to the law of the re-
`gional circuit. Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., 640
`F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Imation Corp. v.
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 586 F.3d 980, 985 (Fed. Cir.
`2009)). The First Circuit reviews orders granting judgment
`on the pleadings de novo. Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina, 491
`F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007).
`Patent eligibility under § 101 is an issue of law that
`may involve underlying issues of fact. See Berkheimer v.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 7 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`7
`
`HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Mortg.
`Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We review the district court’s ulti-
`mate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo. Id. To deter-
`mine whether a patent claims eligible subject matter, we
`follow the Supreme Court’s familiar two-step framework.
`See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014);
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
`U.S. 66, 70–73 (2012). First, we determine whether the
`claims are directed to a law of nature, natural phenomena,
`or abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo, 566
`U.S. at 76–78). If not, then the claims are patent-eligible,
`and the inquiry is over. If so, we proceed to the second step
`and determine whether the claims nonetheless include an
`“inventive concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of
`the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting
`Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 78).
`On appeal, CardioNet argues that the asserted claims
`are not directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, but ra-
`ther to technological improvements to cardiac monitoring
`systems. According to CardioNet, the claims provide a new
`data analysis process that improves cardiac monitoring
`technology by enabling physicians to view heart rate trend
`data and atrial fibrillation burden on a common time scale.
`Even if directed to an abstract idea, CardioNet argues that
`(1) the combination of machine and human review of car-
`diac data, and (2) the use of atrial fibrillation burden—an
`“entirely new metric”—are inventive concepts sufficient to
`transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`Appellants’ Br. 54–55.
`InfoBionic responds that the claims merely recite col-
`lecting, analyzing, and displaying cardiac data—quintes-
`sential abstract concepts—not any particular technology
`for performing those functions. And because the claims re-
`cite only conventional steps performed by conventional
`hardware, InfoBionic argues, the claims do not otherwise
`include an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 8 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`8
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`We agree with InfoBionic. At step one, we conclude
`that the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and
`displaying data, which we have repeatedly held to be ab-
`stract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
`S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting
`cases); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells
`Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`2014).
`While some of the claims are couched as systems or ar-
`ticles, they essentially recite and are directed to collecting,
`analyzing, and displaying data by conventional means.
`They begin by collecting physiological data. The specifica-
`tions explain that a monitoring system “monitors and re-
`ports physiological data,” which can be analyzed and
`“arrhythmia events can be identified based on predeter-
`mined criteria.” ’850 patent col. 3 ll. 12–16. The identified
`events are “correlated” with events identified by a parallel
`human assessment to determine whether the events are
`valid. Id. col. 3 ll. 31–37. However, the claims are not di-
`rected to specific methods for identifying cardiac events or
`determining correlation between machine- and human-
`identified events, nor do the specifications disclose specific
`methods for doing so. Instead, the claims and specifica-
`tions treat those steps as conventional processes, and
`therefore the claims cannot be said to require anything
`more than generic data analysis.
`If the machine-identified events are determined to be
`valid, “the system generates a report relating to both heart
`rate trend and arrhythmia events.” ’850 patent col. 3
`ll. 37–42. But merely displaying data by conventional
`methods as part of a series of abstract steps is itself an ab-
`stract concept. See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
`LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Univ. of
`Florida Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d
`1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). CardioNet argues that the dis-
`play of heart rate data and atrial fibrillation burden on a
`“common time scale” is an improvement over prior art
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 9 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 9 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`9
`
`cardiac monitoring systems because the graph “can be used
`for asymptomatic AF detection, drug therapy (rate,
`rhythm, anti-coagulants), pre/post ablation monitoring,
`and CHF (congestive heart failure) decompensation.” Ap-
`pellants’ Br. 40 (quoting ’850 patent col. 1 ll. 56–60). How-
`ever, displaying data, including displaying two data series
`on the same time axis, is not the sort of “improvement[] to
`existing technological processes and computer technology”
`capable of establishing the eligibility of computer-imple-
`mented method claims, see Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Ge-
`malto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2019),
`and does not make the claimed methods non-abstract de-
`spite its alleged utility. CardioNet’s unified display may be
`very useful to physicians, but usefulness alone does not
`necessarily negate abstractness. See Ass’n for Molecular
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2012)
`(“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery
`does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” (citing Funk
`Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948))).
`Accordingly, we conclude that the claims are directed to the
`abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data.
`Having concluded that the claims are directed to an ab-
`stract idea, we consider whether they describe an inventive
`concept at step two. CardioNet principally argues that the
`combination of machine and human review of cardiac data
`as well as the use of atrial fibrillation burden are inventive
`concepts sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eli-
`gible subject matter. InfoBionic argues that the claims re-
`cite generic systems for performing conventional functions
`without specifying any inventive means for doing so.
`We agree with InfoBionic. While some claims are cast
`as systems and articles, they are implemented on generic
`“monitoring systems,” “monitoring stations,” and “pro-
`cessing systems” which, according to the specification, can
`be implantable medical devices and computing systems.
`Ultimately, the claims depend on methods that can be per-
`formed on any general-purpose computing device without
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 10 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 10 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`10
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`reciting or requiring any nonconventional components or
`characteristics. Additionally, the steps themselves recite
`conventional data processing functions, such as obtaining
`data, analyzing the data to identify features therein, and
`displaying the data, and do not recite any specific or in-
`ventive steps for doing so.
`CardioNet identifies two claimed features that it ar-
`gues are sufficiently inventive to confer patent-eligibility
`on otherwise abstract claims. First, CardioNet argues that
`combining automatic atrial fibrillation detection capabili-
`ties with human review of a subset of data improves accu-
`racy in atrial fibrillation diagnosis while minimizing the
`data that must be manually reviewed. Appellants’ Br. 45.
`But spot-checking systems for quality control is the sort of
`longstanding practice that courts have consistently held to
`be an abstract idea and is performed here using generic
`hardware. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611–12
`(2010) (holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible);
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
`1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding claims directed to the con-
`cept of analyzing records of human activity to detect suspi-
`cious behavior ineligible). Second, CardioNet argues that
`measuring the atrial fibrillation burden is a new metric de-
`veloped by the inventors that improves cardiac monitoring
`by aiding physicians in assessing the severity of an ar-
`rhythmia event. Appellants’ Br. 55. InfoBionic disputes
`whether atrial fibrillation burden was in fact a new metric.
`Appellee’s Br. 44. Even assuming that measuring the
`atrial fibrillation burden is a new metric as CardioNet
`claims, it is at most a mathematical computation per-
`formed on a general-purpose computing device, which
`could otherwise be “performed by a human, mentally or
`with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Sy-
`mantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Be-
`cause the claim limitations, considered individually or
`collectively, amount only to implementations of abstract
`ideas using conventional technology, we conclude that the
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-11803-IT Document 511 Filed 07/01/20 Page 11 of 11
`Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 11 Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
`
`11
`
`claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to
`transform the claims into patent-eligible applications.
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered CardioNet’s remaining arguments
`but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the
`judgment of the district court is affirmed.
`AFFIRMED
`
`