CardioNet, LLC et al. v. Infobionic, Inc. (17-cv-10445).

Judge Talwani granted Infobionic 2019s motion to dismiss, finding the claims in suit were directed to patent-inelligible subject matter. CardioNet accused Infobionic of infringing U.S. Patent 7,941,207, titled 201cCardiac Monitoring, 201d by sales of its MoMe Kardia System. The patent concerns monitoring electrical activity of the heart to identify atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, two forms of arrhythmia, in ambulatory (i.e., not bed-ridden) patients. Judge Talwani noted that dismissals founded on 00a7 101 invalidity were approved by the Federal Circuit in their 2018 Aatrix Software decision, applying the non-moving party 2019s proposed claim construction where construction is necessary. Here, Judge Talwani found the claims were directed to the abstract idea of looking at the variability in time between heartbeats and taking into account ventricular beats, a method of diagnosis that had long been used, and that the claims merely applied conventional computer components to that idea. She rejected CardioNet 2019s argument that the improvement to the field of cardiac telemetry necessarily translated into an improvement in computerized technology that would take the claims out of the Alice analysis. Having determined that the claims are directed to a natural phenomenon under the first step of the Alice, Judge Talwani went on to find that the algorithms used in the analysis would not suffice to result in eligibility, because Alice forceloses eligibility based on the implementation of a mathematical principal on a computer. The claims themselves used terms like 201cvariability determination logic 201d and 201crelevance determination logic; 201d Judge Talwani noted that CadioNet failed to identify what aspect of these logic systems described in the specification made the claims patent-eligible, and further noted that 201cdetermination logic 201d is not defined or used in the specification. As such, it would cover any form of logic, and provides no meaningful limitation on the claims that would render them eligible. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.