Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The 'determination logic' cited by Plaintiffs is not a limitation set forth in the '207 patent. Instead, the 'determination logic' is undefined and unspecified. Claim 1 broadly claims the use of components with 'variability determination logic to determine a variability in the beat-to-beat timing of a collection of beats,' without specifying any limitations to that logic. '207 Patent 16 col. 12:17-18 [# 25-1]. In claim 2, the determination logic 'is to accommodate variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats by weighting ventricular beats as being negatively indicative of the one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.' Id. at col. 12:29-32. In claim 3 'the variability determination logic is to compare times between R-waves in three successive QRS complexes to determine the variability in the beat-to-beat timing.' Id. at col. 12:33-36. And, in claim 10 'the relevance determination logic comprises logic to identify the relevance of the variability using a non-linear function of a beat-to-beat interval.' Id. at 17 col. 13:5-8. The innovation of the '207 patent may be to use computer equipment and logic to monitor the variability of beats, but nothing in these claims places any limitation on that abstract idea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cardionet, LLC v. Scottcare Corp.

2. “2. The device of claim 1, wherein the relevance determination logic is to accommodate variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats by weighting ventricular beats as being negatively indicative of the one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. 3. The device of claim 1, wherein the variability determination logic is to compare times between R-waves in three successive QRS complexes to determine the variability in the beat-to-beat timing..... 7. The device of claim 1, wherein the event generator is to generate an event by performing operations comprising: collecting data associated with the collection of beats; and transmitting the data associated with the collection of beats to a remote receiver..... 10. The device of claim 1, wherein the relevance determination logic comprises logic to identify the relevance of the variability using a non-linear function of a beat-to-beat interval. 11. The device of claim 1, wherein the beat detector comprises a QRS detector. 12. The device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor that includes two or more body surface electrodes subject to one or more potential differences related to cardiac activity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cardionet, LLC v. Scottcare Corp.

3. “Review of the '207 patent shows that the claims add conventional computer components to the abstract idea that AF can be distinguished by focusing on the variability of the irregular heartbeat. The specifications describe systems and techniques with various methods for monitoring that variability. The patent claims at issue in this case thus appear to be similarly directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect particular anomalies, and notifying the user when the anomaly is detected .... The idea of using a machine to monitor and analyze heart beat variability and interfering beats so as to alert the user of potential AF events may well improve the field of cardiac telemetry, but Plaintiffs do not identify improvements to any particular computerized technology. Thus, the '207 patent is directed to an abstract idea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cardionet, LLC v. Scottcare Corp.