Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc. ( 2021 )

Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 10/29/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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-Cross-Appellant
______________________
2020-2123, 2020-2150
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, Judge
Indira Talwani.
______________________
Decided: October 29, 2021
______________________
FRANK A. DECOSTA, III, Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, ar-
gued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by ALIZA
GEORGE CARRANO.
CHARLES SANDERS, Latham & Watkins LLP, Boston,
MA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also repre-
sented by CHRISTOPHER HENRY; GABRIEL K. BELL, DIANE
GHRIST, MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 10/29/2021
2 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
______________________
Before LOURIE, DYK, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC
(collectively, “CardioNet”) appeal from the decision of the
United States District Court for the District of Massachu-
setts granting summary judgment that InfoBionic did not
infringe claims 1–2, 8, 11–12, and 20–21 of U.S. Patent
7,099,715 (“the ’715 patent”). CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBi-
onic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT, 2020 WL 4559934 (D.
Mass. June 22, 2020) (“Summary Judgment Decision”). In-
foBionic cross-appeals from the district court’s decision
that the asserted claims of CardioNet’s ’715 patent are not
ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CardioNet,
LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT, 2017 WL
1788650 (D. Mass. May 4, 2017) (“Validity Decision”).
Because we conclude that the ’715 patent claims sub-
ject matter ineligible for patent, we vacate the district
court’s decision granting summary judgment of nonin-
fringement. We remand for the entry of judgment of no
liability on the ground that the district court should have
granted InfoBionic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
as to unpatentability.
BACKGROUND
CardioNet owns the ’715 patent, which is directed to an
improved heart monitoring device. Heart monitoring de-
vices measure the heart’s activity using an electrocardio-
gram (“ECG”). ’715 patent at col. 1 ll. 17–25. The ECG
plots the heart’s electrical signals as different waveforms
on a graph, including the P wave, the R wave, and the T
wave. Id. at col. 1 ll. 21–23, col. 3 ll. 61–65. The P wave
corresponds to atrial depolarization. The R wave corre-
sponds to ventricular depolarization. The T wave corre-
sponds to ventricular repolarization and relaxation. A
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 3
doctor can measure a person’s heart rate by calculating the
distance between consecutive R waves. Id. at col. 3 ll. 34–
39.
According to the ’715 patent, existing heart monitoring
devices could be error prone. For example, the specification
explains that in a normal heartbeat, the R wave is taller
than the T wave (shown in figure 3 below). Id. at col. 3 ll.
61–65. However, some patients have “abnormal[ly]” tall T
waves (shown in figure 4 below). Id. at col. 3 ll. 65–67. As
a result, the ECG may mistakenly classify them as R
waves. Id. at col. 3 ll. 52–67. Because of that misclassifi-
cation, the ECG reports an inaccurately high heart rate.
Id. at col. 3 ll. 55–60.
’715 patent at figs. 3–4.
The ’715 patent invention purports to address such er-
rors by disclosing a heart monitoring device with an alleg-
edly inventive feature: a T wave filter. The T wave filter
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 10/29/2021
4 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
“reduce[s] the amplitude of T waves, while preserving or
slightly increasing the amplitude of R waves,” thereby im-
proving the ECG’s classification accuracy. Id. at col. 3 ll.
52–60, col. 4 ll. 5–8. Of relevance to this appeal, the T wave
filter may not always be “activated.” Rather, the heart
monitoring device first sends the ECG data to a monitoring
station. Id. at col. 4 ll. 51–60. At the monitoring station, a
human operator can decide to activate the filter upon ob-
serving abnormally tall T waves. Id. at col. 4 l. 61–col. 5 l.
1. To activate the filter, the operator sends a message to
the monitoring apparatus. Id.The ’715 patent consists of three independent claims
that are relevant to this appeal, claims 1, 11, and 20. In-
dependent claim 1 recites a machine-implemented method
of using the T wave filter. It reads as follows:
1. A machine-implemented method comprising:
identifying heart beats in a sensed cardiac signal;
activating a frequency domain T wave filter, used
in said identifying heart beats, in response to a
message from a monitoring station generated at
least in part based upon discovery of a predeter-
mined characteristic in the sensed cardiac signal;
and
outputting information corresponding to the iden-
tified heart beats to a communications channel of a
distributed cardiac activity monitoring system.
Id. at col. 6 ll. 27–36; J.A. 52 (certificate of correction) (em-
phases added).
Independent claim 11 recites a system claim:
11. A distributed cardiac activity monitoring sys-
tem comprising:
a monitoring apparatus including a communica-
tions interface, a real-time QRS detector, a
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 5
frequency domain T wave filter, and a selector that
activates the T wave filter with respect to the real-
time QRS detector in response to a message,
wherein the activated frequency domain T wave fil-
ter preprocesses a cardiac signal provided to the
realtime QRS detector; and
a monitoring station that communicatively couples
with the monitoring apparatus via the communica-
tions interface and transmits the message to the
monitoring apparatus to activate the frequency do-
main T wave filter based at least in part upon a
predetermined criteria.
Id. at col. 7 ll. 4–18; J.A. 52 (certificate of correction) (em-
phases added).
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim. The district court fo-
cused on claim 20, and we shall as well. It reads as follows:
20. A cardiac monitoring apparatus comprising:
a communications interface;
a real-time heart beat detector;
a frequency domain T wave filter; and
a selector that activates the frequency domain T
wave filter with respect to the real-time heart beat
detector in response to a message, wherein the ac-
tivated frequency domain T wave filter prepro-
cesses a cardiac signal provided to the real-time
heart beat detector.
Id. at col. 7 ll. 45–53; J.A. 52 (certificate of correction) (em-
phases added).
In 2016, a competitor of CardioNet, InfoBionic, mar-
keted its own cardiac monitoring device, the “MoMe® Kar-
dia system.” J.A. 4414–15. CardioNet alleged that the
device had a T wave filter. Subsequently, it sued InfoBi-
onic, asserting that the MoMe® Kardia system (second
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 10/29/2021
6 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
generation) infringes claims 1–2, 8, 11–12, and 20–21 of the
’715 patent. J.A. 948, 4436–37. In response, InfoBionic
moved for judgment on the pleadings that the asserted
claims of the ’715 patent are ineligible for patent under
§ 101. J.A. 773.
The district court denied InfoBionic’s motion, holding
that the asserted claims of the ’715 patent are not ineligible
under § 101. The court analyzed the claims under the Su-
preme Court’s two-step Alice framework for determining
patent eligibility. At step one, it determined that claim 20
is directed to the abstract idea of “filtering raw cardiogram
data to optimize its output.” Validity Decision, 2017 WL
1788650, at *10. However, at step two, it determined that
claim 20 recites an inventive concept sufficient to trans-
form the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The court reasoned that, because claim 20 is “tied to a ma-
chine,” it satisfies “the machine-or-transformation test”
and thus “fall[s] within the ambit of Section 101.” Id. at
*11. 1 As a result, it denied InfoBionic’s motion for judg-
ment on the pleadings. Id.
Subsequently, CardioNet proceeded to litigate its in-
fringement claim. InfoBionic moved for summary judg-
ment of noninfringement. The district court granted that
motion. Summary Judgment Decision, 2020 WL 4559934,
at *8–10. The court first found that CardioNet failed to
supplement its infringement contentions in a timely man-
ner, effectively “hid[ing] the ball” from InfoBionic. Id. at
*5–10; J.A. 8962–63. Consequently, it precluded Cardio-
Net from relying on several of its infringement theories.
Summary Judgment Decision, 2020 WL 4559934, at *8–10.
After excluding that evidence, the court concluded that
1 The district court’s reference to claim 9 in the “In-
ventive Concept” section of its opinion should have referred
to claim 20. Validity Decision, 2017 WL 1788650, at *10–
11.
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 7
there was no genuine dispute regarding noninfringement
and InfoBionic was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id.CardioNet appealed the district court’s decision grant-
ing summary judgment. InfoBionic cross-appealed the
court’s denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, CardioNet asserts that the district court
erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement
in favor of InfoBionic. In turn, InfoBionic argues in a cross-
appeal that the court erred in holding that the asserted
claims of the ’715 patent are not ineligible for patent under
§ 101. We turn first to InfoBionic’s argument regarding
§ 101.
I.
Section 101
We review a district court’s denial of judgment on the
pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) ac-
cording to the law of the regional 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 an order denying a judgment on the pleadings de
novo, “accept[ing] the truth of all well-pleaded facts and
draw[ing] all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
pleader’s favor.” Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 79 (1st Cir.
2012) (quoting Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40, 44
(1st Cir. 2012)).
Patent eligibility under § 101 is an issue of law that
may contain underlying issues of fact. See Berkheimer v.
HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We review
the district court’s ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility
de novo. Id. To determine whether a patent claims eligible
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 8 Filed: 10/29/2021
8 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
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. Prome-
theus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70–73 (2012). First, we de-
termine whether the claims are directed to a law of nature,
natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217. If so, we proceed to the second step and determine
whether the claims nonetheless include an “inventive con-
cept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into
a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 72, 78). To recite an “inventive concept” at step two, a
patent must do more than recite an abstract idea “while
adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72). Moreover, “simply appending conventional
steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of na-
ture, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make
those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo, 566
U.S. at 82.
Alice Step One
At step one, InfoBionic argues that claim 20 is directed
to the abstract idea of filtering data. It further asserts that
the T wave filter performs a simple mathematical func-
tion—reducing the T wave’s amplitude—which cannot con-
fer eligibility. CardioNet responds that claim 20 is not
directed to an abstract idea, but, rather, to an improvement
in cardiac monitoring technology.
We agree with InfoBionic. As the claim language and
the specification make clear, the invention is directed to
the abstract idea of filtering patient heartbeat signals to
increase accuracy. ’715 patent at col. 3 ll. 58–60, col. 4 ll.
35–36. Specifically, claim 20 focuses on selectively “acti-
vat[ing]” the “T wave filter” to “preprocess[] a cardiac sig-
nal.” Id. at col. 7 ll. 45–53. Similarly, the specification
explains that the very purpose of the invention centers on
using the T wave filter to filter data. See id. at Abstract,
col. 3 ll. 52–col. 4 ll. 67. But, at bottom, filtering the data
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 9 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 9
requires only basic mathematical calculations, such as “de-
compos[ing] a T wave into its constituent frequencies and
multipl[ying] them by a filter frequency response.” Appel-
lant’s Reply and Resp. Br. 49 (citing ’715 patent at col. 4 ll.
19–36). And such calculations, even if “[g]roundbreaking,”
are still directed to an abstract idea. SAP Am., Inc. v. In-
vestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing
Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569
U.S. 576, 591 (2013)).
CardioNet makes several additional arguments in sup-
port of its assertion that claim 20 is not directed to an ab-
stract idea. Those arguments are all unpersuasive.
First, CardioNet contends that claim 20 is necessarily
tied to a “specific improvement” in cardiac monitoring tech-
nology because, without the claimed T wave filter, the ECG
may mistakenly classify the T waves as R waves. Appel-
lant’s Reply and Resp. Br. 42–43. We are unpersuaded by
that argument. To qualify as “a patent-eligible improve-
ment,” the invention must be directed to a specific improve-
ment in the computer’s functionality, not simply to use of
the computer “as a tool” to implement an abstract idea.
Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d
1359, 1363–1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Here, the invention falls
into the latter category. It focuses on using a general-pur-
pose computer to carry out the abstract idea of filtering
data. See ’715 patent at col. 3 ll. 52–60, col. 4 ll. 19–36, col.
5, ll. 34–38.
In addition, claim 20 supplies no specific way to collect
and process the data or to implement the T wave filter. Nor
does it specify how to determine when to activate the T
wave filter. Rather, it leaves that decision to the operator.
See id. at col. 4 ll. 61–65. Indeed, even the district court
recognized that the claim language was problematic for
CardioNet’s eligibility argument. Specifically, when ana-
lyzing the parties’ dispute regarding infringement, the
court briefly revisited its earlier conclusion that the
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 10 Filed: 10/29/2021
10 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
asserted claims are not ineligible under § 101. Summary
Judgment Decision, 2020 WL 4559934, at *9–10. It ob-
served that, when making its infringement argument, Car-
dioNet had emphasized the operator’s role in activating the
T wave filter, but that, problematically, when making its
eligibility argument (at an earlier stage in the proceed-
ings), it had downplayed that aspect of the claim. Id. The
court strongly hinted that, had it been aware of the signif-
icance of the operator’s mental process to the claimed in-
vention at the pleadings stage, it would have considered
holding the claims ineligible under § 101. J.A. 8963–72,
8985 (oral argument proceedings). The district court’s sub-
sequent analysis regarding § 101 supports our ultimate
conclusion here.
Second, CardioNet emphasizes that the T wave filter
can calculate mathematical functions that a human cannot
mentally perform. As support for its argument, it points to
the district court’s finding that the T wave filter “dimin-
ish[es] the intensity of [the] T wave while preserving or am-
plifying the R wave,” which a human cannot “manually”
calculate. Validity Decision, 2017 WL 1788650, at *10 (em-
phases in original). CardioNet’s argument misses the
mark. “[T]he inability for the human mind to perform each
claim step does not alone confer patentability.” FairWarn-
ing IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Consequently, even assuming that only a computer
can perform the calculations, CardioNet’s argument is un-
persuasive; the T wave filter’s mathematical function alone
does not make the claims any less abstract.
Third, CardioNet asserts that claim 20 is similar to the
claims that we held to be nonabstract in CardioNet, LLC v.
InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We disa-
gree. That case (involving the same parties here) con-
cerned a patent with claims to a system that detects
different types of cardiac arrythmias by measuring heart-
beat variability. Id. at 1362. Importantly, we observed
that there was no intrinsic evidence that the claimed
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 11 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 11
technique had ever been used. Id. at 1370–71. Here, how-
ever, as explained below, InfoBionic points to evidence that
the use of a filter to perform mathematical functions was
not a new activity. In fact, during oral argument, Cardio-
Net admitted that “T wave filters, as a general proposition,
existed” prior to the patent (although later, it unpersua-
sively argued that the filter had not been used in the same
specific “way” recited in the ’715 patent). See Oral Argu-
ment (20–2123) at 31:20–33:00.
Additionally, CardioNet’s argument is particularly un-
persuasive given that there is another case (also involving
the same parties) with claims much more similar to the
ones at issue here: CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 816
F. App’x 471 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In that case, we held that
claims to a system for “presenting information relating to
heart data” are ineligible for patent under § 101. Id. at 472.
The relevant claims recite a monitoring system and moni-
toring station that: (1) identify heartbeat anomalies, (2)
cross-check the results with a human operator, and (3) dis-
play the data. Id. Ultimately, we held that the claims are
directed to the abstract concept of “collecting, analyzing,
and displaying data” in order to perform the “longstanding
practice” of “spot-checking systems for quality control.” Id.
at 475–77. Our holding in that case is directly applicable
here. Specifically, claim 20 is directed to the abstract con-
cept of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data while us-
ing a T wave filter.
Having concluded that claim 20 is directed to an ab-
stract idea, as did the district court, we next consider
whether it recites an inventive concept at step two.
Alice Step Two
At step two, InfoBionic argues that the district court
erred in holding that claim 20 recites an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into patent-
eligible subject matter. According to InfoBionic, claim 20
merely employs conventional computer components to
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 12 Filed: 10/29/2021
12 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
carry out an abstract idea. CardioNet responds that the T
wave filter was “an innovative” and nonconventional solu-
tion to a key problem: measuring the heart rate of patients
with tall T waves. Appellant’s Reply and Resp. Br. 46–47.
Moreover, according to CardioNet, the district court’s con-
clusion that claim 20 satisfies the “machine-or-transfor-
mation test” is “unassailable.” Id. It further asserts that
claim 20 is akin to the claims we held to be nonabstract in
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.
2020).
We agree with InfoBionic that the district court erred
in holding that claim 20 recites an inventive concept.
First, we are unpersuaded by CardioNet’s argument
that the invention consists of “more” than conventional
components performing basic functions. As InfoBionic
points out, although CardioNet emphasizes that the T
wave filter was “innovative,” the ’715 patent cites refer-
ences that contradict that argument. For example, one
cited patent describes a “filter” that “accentuates the R-
wave and attenuates the effect of the T-wave because the
T-wave is a low frequency, far field signal.” See ’715 patent
at references cited; U.S. Patent 6,834,204 at col. 5 ll. 23–
32, col. 6 ll. 13–15. And regardless, even accepting Cardi-
oNet’s argument that the T wave filter’s function was inno-
vative, “[a] claim for a new abstract idea,” here, a
mathematical calculation, “is still an abstract idea.” SAP,
898 F.3d at 1163 (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Aside from the T wave filter, the specification explains that
the other claimed components are conventional. For exam-
ple, it discloses that the “monitoring apparatus,” which col-
lects the data, “can be implemented using” a “commercially
available” device. ’715 patent at col. 2 ll. 1–36. It then
states that the collected data is analyzed using “suitable
processors,” including “general . . . purpose microproces-
sors.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 58–59. Additionally, according to the
specification, “[t]he systems and techniques . . . can be
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 13 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 13
implemented” using “computer hardware, firmware, [or]
software.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 34–46.
Second, we disagree with the district court’s determi-
nation that claim 20 recites an inventive concept because
it satisfies the machine-or-transformation test. “[S]atisfy-
ing the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not suf-
ficient to render a claim patent-eligible” because not all
“transformations or machine implementations infuse an
otherwise ineligible claim with an ‘inventive concept.’” So-
lutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Indeed, the Supreme
Court itself held in Bilski that the machine-or-transfor-
mation test is a “useful and important clue” for determin-
ing patent eligibility, but not dispositive. Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010). Here, although claim 20 is tech-
nically tied to a machine (a cardiac apparatus) its ultimate
focus is to “preprocess[] a cardiac signal” using a “T wave
filter,” which, as explained above, is an abstract idea. ’715
patent at col. 7 ll. 45–54; J.A. 52 (certificate of correction).
To the extent that formulating a claim in the form of an
apparatus insulates it from an ineligibility attack if it only
recites conventional components for performing an ab-
stract idea, the Supreme Court has closed that door, at
least for now.
Third, we are unpersuaded by CardioNet’s step two ar-
guments relying on CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955
F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In that case, we did not reach
step two because we held that the claims are not ineligible
for patent under § 101 at step one. Id. at 1371. Addition-
ally, the facts in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 816 F.
App’x 471 (Fed. Cir. 2020) are much more similar to those
at issue here. There, we explained that the abstract con-
cept of “collecting, analyzing, and displaying data” in order
to perform the “longstanding practice” of “spot-checking
systems for quality control” was implemented using “con-
ventional technology,” including a monitoring system and
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 14 Filed: 10/29/2021
14 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.
a monitoring station. Id. at 475–77. Likewise, here, claim
20 recites conventional components (a monitoring appa-
ratus and monitoring station) performing the same type of
conventional functions: collecting data, analyzing it with
the T wave filter’s mathematical calculations, and display-
ing it on the monitoring station. ’715 patent at col. 2 ll. 1–
48; col. 4 ll. 19–36.
Finally, we conclude that the remaining claims are di-
rected to substantially similar subject matter as claim 20
and are therefore ineligible under § 101. For example, the
two other asserted independent claims are materially the
same as claim 20 but recite transmitting the command to
activate the T wave filter based on predetermined charac-
teristics (claim 1) or predetermined criteria (claim 11) of
the patient’s heartbeat. ’715 patent at col. 6 ll. 27–36, col.
7 ll. 4–18. CardioNet does not explain how a doctor’s deci-
sion to activate the T wave filter based upon certain fea-
tures (i.e., a tall T wave) is anything more than an abstract
idea. Similarly, dependent claim 2 recites identifying
heartbeats based on R waves. Id. at col. 6 ll. 37–39. But
the specification itself describes that concept as well
known. Id. at col. 1 ll. 17–21. Dependent claims 8, 12, and
21 recite using “wireless communications.” Id. at col. 6 ll.
60–62; col. 7 ll. 19–20, 54–56. That limitation constitutes
conventional activity that does not change the claims’ cen-
tral focus on filtering.
Accordingly, we conclude that the patent does not re-
cite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the as-
serted claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
II
Noninfringement
CardioNet asserts that the district court erred in grant-
ing summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of In-
foBionic. However, because we conclude that the asserted
claims of the ’715 patent are ineligible for patent under
Case: 20-2123 Document: 55 Page: 15 Filed: 10/29/2021
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 15
§ 101, we do not reach CardioNet’s argument. That issue
is moot. See TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
374 F.3d 1151, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a “judgment of inva-
lidity necessarily moots the issue of infringement” (citing
Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d
1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001))).
CONCLUSION
We have considered CardioNet’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
vacate the district court’s decision granting summary judg-
ment of noninfringement. We remand for the entry of judg-
ment of no liability for InfoBionic on the ground that the
district court should have granted the motion for judgment
on the pleadings as to unpatentability.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to cross-appellant.