Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cardionet, LLC v. The Scottcare Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 19, 2017

CARDIONET, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE SCOTTCARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          TUCKER, J.

         Presently before this Court are:

         1. Defendants ScottCare Corporation (“ScottCare”) and Ambucor Health Solutions, Inc's (“Ambucor”) Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. George T. Ligler (Doc. 107);

         2. ScottCare and Ambucor's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Laura B. Stamm (Doc. 110);

         3. Plaintiffs CardioNet, LLC (“CardioNet”) and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC's (“Braemar”) Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Bryan Bergeron Regarding the “King of Hearts” Reference (Doc. 115); and

         4. CardioNet and Braemar's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Michael Lasinski Regarding Non-infringing Alternatives (Doc. 120).

         Upon consideration of the Parties' briefs[1] and exhibits, the record of this case, and oral argument held before the Court on June 16, 2015, the Parties' motions are DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “CardioNet”) bring this patent infringement action against Defendants ScottCare Corporation and Ambucor Health Solutions (collectively, “Defendants” or “ScottCare”), alleging that ScottCare and Ambucor's TeleSentry MCT System (“TeleSentry”) infringed on CardioNet's patents. The patents-in-suit are directed to multiple aspects of electrocardiographic (“ECG”) telemetry devices. ECG telemetry devices are monitors used to record and transmit the electrical activity of the heart over a period of time. These devices help medical professionals monitor a patient's cardiac activity and detect cardiac irregularities. The cardiac data recorded by the ECG telemetry device is transmitted to a remote location where medical technicians review the information. This information can then be sent to a medical professional for further review and diagnosis.

         Plaintiffs maintain that their use of innovative methods and systems has allowed their patented inventions to enable more accurate detection of cardiac irregularities. According to Plaintiffs, the patented inventions also ensure that medically relevant information obtained during ECG monitoring is efficiently processed and made available to trained personnel for review. A brief summary of each patent-in-suit, as construed by Plaintiffs, appears below.

         A. The ‘850 and ‘996 Patents (Patents Nos. 7, 212, 850 and 7, 907, 996)

         The ‘850 and ‘996 patents disclose systems and techniques relating to processing and presenting arrhythmia event information from physiological data. The patents are directed to methods and systems for effectively reporting information relating to atrial fibrillation events to medical practitioners to assist in treating heart arrhythmia. The ‘850 and ‘996 patents enhance and simplify medical review by ensuring that the most relevant information is presented together. These patents include a novel way of pictographically presenting the information based on a human assessment of events.

         B. The ‘095 Patent (Patent No. 6, 569, 095)

         The asserted claims of the ‘095 patent involve techniques that allows a patient to be monitored remotely. This device generates a warning signal when the patient's physiological characteristic, such as a heart rate, exceeds the acceptable limits. Unlike prior heart monitoring devices, this device takes into account the fact that not all warning limits are universally applicable or even applicable for the same patient under all conditions. The ‘095 patent establishes realistic warning limits that are characteristic of situations that are truly urgent by revising warning limits while the patient is still using the monitor. As a result, there is increased precision in the warnings generated.

         C. The ‘237 Patent (Patent No. 7, 587, 237)

         The ‘237 patent involves systems and techniques for analyzing and handling biological signals, such as a patient's cardiac signal. The handling of biological signals includes notifying medical personnel at a remote location in response to the identification of an “event.” An “event” is associated with medical conditions, such as atrial fibrillation. From a remote location, medical personnel analyze biological signals prior to handling, which reduces the volume of data requiring handling. This system both minimizes handling costs and ensures that relevant information is not lost. The system accomplishes this by determining whether a given cardiac event is sufficiently meritorious to justify its transmission to a monitoring station for review.

         D. The ‘207 Patent (Patent No. 7, 941, 207)

         The ‘207 Patent discloses devices and techniques for monitoring cardiac activity. Specifically, the devices and techniques collect information describing variability in heart beats and determine whether that variability is indicative of an atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter event. In addition, the claimed devices are designed to monitor cardiac signals of ambulatory patients who are away from controlled environments such as hospital beds or treatment facilities.

         Before the Court are a number of motions to exclude the admission of expert testimony regarding the patents-in-suit. For the reasons set forth below, the Parties' motions are DENIED.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. Rule 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.