Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 12 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Amar L. Thakur (Bar No. 194025) 2 amarthakur@quinnemanuel.com Bruce Zisser (Bar No. 180607) 3 brucezisser@quinnemanuel.com 4 Viola Trebicka(Bar No. 269526) violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com 5 Miles D. Freeman (Bar No. 299302) 6 milesfreeman@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017 8 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Fax: (213) 443-3100 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff CliniComp International, Inc. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 CLINICOMP INTERNATIONAL, INC., 16 Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18 CERNER CORPORATION, 19 Defendant. 20 '17CV2479 GPC BLM Case No. ________________ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.2 Page 2 of 12 1 COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff CliniComp International, Inc. (“CliniComp”) hereby submits its 3 Complaint against Defendant Cerner Corporation (“Cerner”) and alleges as follows: 4 5 NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action for infringement under the patent laws of the 6 United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. 7 2. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued 8 U.S. Patent No. 6,665,647 (the “’647 patent”), entitled “Enterprise Healthcare 9 Management System and Method of Using Same,” on December 16, 2003. 10 CliniComp is the legal owner of the ’647 patent by assignment. A true and correct 11 copy of the ’647 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12 3. Cerner has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of 13 the ’647 patent. CliniComp seeks, among other things, monetary damages and 14 injunctive relief. 15 16 THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff CliniComp is a corporation organized and existing under the 17 laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 9655 Towne 18 Centre Drive, San Diego, CA 92121. 19 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cerner is a corporation 20 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal 21 place of business at 2800 Rockcreek Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64117. 22 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over CliniComp’s claims for 24 patent infringement pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 25 7. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over 26 Cerner in this action because Cerner has committed acts within this District giving 27 rise to this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that 28 the exercise of jurisdiction over Cerner would not offend traditional notions of fair -2COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.3 Page 3 of 12 1 play and substantial justice. Cerner has committed and induced acts of patent 2 infringement and has regularly and systematically conducted and solicited business 3 in this District by and through at least its sales and offers for sale of Cerner products 4 and/or services in this District and, on information and belief, leases office space in 5 this District. 6 8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 7 1400(b) at least because Cerner has committed acts of infringement in this District 8 and has a regular and established place of business in this District. On information 9 and belief, Cerner employs many people in this District, including at least at the 10 Cerner ITWorks site at Palomar Medical Center in Escondido, CA. 11 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12 A. CliniComp 13 CliniComp is a privately-held, San Diego-based company that develops 14 Electronic Health Record (EHR) and other information technology (IT) solutions for 15 hospitals, integrated delivery networks, academic medical centers, and other acute 16 care providers in the United States and abroad. CliniComp pioneered the integration 17 of computer-based clinical documentation and medical devices almost three decades 18 ago. Today, the CliniComp EHR system is deployed in leading private, military, 19 and veterans health care facilities, including in 56 Military Treatment Facilities and 20 more than 40 VA health care facilities, supporting safer and more efficient patient 21 care. 22 B. CliniComp Technology 23 9. Healthcare enterprises, which can include, for example, “hospitals, 24 clinics, physician groups, or even Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs)” can 25 be very large organizations consisting of many different facilities and supporting 26 hundreds of doctors. ’647 patent at 1:31-35. These enterprises are under pressure to 27 operate efficiently while maintaining and improving the quality of patient care, 28 which requires access to accurate and complete information regarding the various -3COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.4 Page 4 of 12 1 functions of the enterprise. To manage such information, healthcare enterprises 2 often rely on an IT infrastructure of networked computers and applications that 3 provide, for example, clinical information for day-to-day patient management, 4 financial and administrative applications, pharmacy management as well as EHR 5 management. 6 10. Historically, healthcare enterprises operated their own IT infrastructure. 7 As the needs of the enterprise increased, these systems would be expanded to 8 include the applications and computer resources necessary to meet the growing 9 needs of the enterprise. This IT infrastructure was expensive to build and expensive 10 to maintain but even more expensive to upgrade. As technology advanced and the 11 healthcare enterprise faced pressure to improve the capabilities of its system, the 12 healthcare enterprise would face the dilemma of needing to upgrade its systems in 13 order to remain viable and competitive but not having the significant resources 14 needed to do so. A major upgrade to an IT infrastructure required both a financial 15 investment as well as a significant investment of time and human resources. 16 Advanced planning, a lengthy approval cycle, and rigorous testing requirements all 17 add to the expense and the risk of a major IT infrastructure upgrade. An enterprise 18 unable or unwilling to endure such a process will forgo the upgrade at the risk of 19 falling further behind in its ability to provide healthcare services at expected and 20 competitive levels. 21 11. In 1999, Chris Haudenschild, the named inventor of the ’647 patent and 22 sole founder of CliniComp, recognized the challenge facing healthcare enterprises 23 and conceived of a system that would take advantage of the emerging power of the 24 Internet to solve the IT infrastructure dilemma. Rather than have each healthcare 25 enterprise host its own IT infrastructure and be saddled with the burden of 26 maintaining and upgrading that infrastructure, Haudenschild envisioned a system 27 where the primary components of the IT infrastructure, such as application servers 28 and databases, would be hosted remote from the healthcare enterprise in a manner -4COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.5 Page 5 of 12 1 that would allow at least some of these resources to be shared by different healthcare 2 enterprises. In this way, a healthcare enterprise could avoid the capital investment 3 necessary to acquire and maintain its own IT infrastructure and also benefit from the 4 ability to upgrade existing capabilities and even add new functionality without the 5 cost and risk associated with doing the same for an in-house system. 6 12. Haudenschild, however, needed to consider other factors that would be 7 important to any healthcare enterprise upgrading to a remotely hosted system. In the 8 transition from an in-house to a remotely hosted IT infrastructure a healthcare 9 enterprise would need to ensure that it maintained access to its legacy data and, 10 possibly even certain legacy systems. For example, while it may make sense to 11 remotely host clinical care and pharmacy applications, it might also make sense for 12 the enterprise to maintain its legacy accounting system in house. The remote 13 system, therefore, must be capable of also storing data from the legacy system and 14 making that data available to system-wide queries. The data must also, however, be 15 protected. One advantage of the remotely hosted IT infrastructure is the ability of 16 multiple healthcare enterprises to share resources, but this does not mean sharing 17 data. To protect the integrity of each individual healthcare enterprise and the 18 privacy of its employees and patients, data from one healthcare enterprises must not 19 be accessible by another healthcare enterprise. 20 C. Cerner 21 13. Cerner is a healthcare information technology company providing 22 healthcare related IT services that support the clinical, financial and operational 23 needs of organizations of all sizes. Many of Cerner’s solutions are offered on the 24 Cerner Millennium architecture, which is a computing framework that includes 25 integrated clinical, financial and management information systems. The Millennium 26 architecture allows providers to securely access an individual’s electronic health 27 record at the point of care and organizes and delivers information to meet the 28 specific needs of all involved, from physicians to back-office professionals. Cerner -5COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.6 Page 6 of 12 1 offers remote hosting services for its Millennium architecture, providing its 2 customers with a cloud-based solution for healthcare applications and data. 3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Infringement of Patent No. 6,665,647 5 14. CliniComp incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set 6 forth herein. 7 15. Cerner has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, one or 8 more claims of the ’647 patent, including but not limited to claim 1, pursuant to 35 9 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell within the United 10 States, without authority, its hosting and monitoring services, including at least its 11 Remote Hosting Option (RHO), its Enterprise Solution Hosting (eHosting), and its 12 Enterprise Cloud Services, including as these services are used with the Cener 13 Millennium architecture (“Accused Services”). 14 16. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language 15 in italics) is a description of the infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’647 16 patent in connection with the Accused Services. CliniComp reserves the right to 17 modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about 18 the Accused Services that it obtains during discovery: 19 1. A method of operating an enterprise healthcare management system for a 20 first healthcare enterprise facility and a second healthcare enterprise facility 21 independent of the first healthcare enterprise facility, comprising: To the extent the 22 preamble is limiting, through its Accused Services, Cerner operates an enterprise 23 healthcare management system for two or more independent healthcare enterprise 24 facilities. 25 [1a] establishing a first secure communication channel via a public network 26 between an application server and a first end user device in the first enterprise 27 facility and establishing a second secure communication channel via the public 28 network between the application server and a second end user device in the second -6COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.7 Page 7 of 12 1 enterprise facility, the application server remotely hosting a healthcare application 2 and having a database; On information and belief, as part of providing the Accused 3 Services, Cerner uses the Internet to establish secure communication channels 4 between user devices at client healthcare enterprise facilities remotely hosted 5 application servers, which host both a healthcare application and a database. See 6 https://www.cerner.com/solutions/hosting-monitoring. 7 [1b] receiving first healthcare data from the first end user and second 8 healthcare data from the second end user; On information and belief, the remotely 9 hosted application servers receive healthcare data from end users, e.g., employees at 10 the supported enterprise healthcare facilities utilizing the remotely hosted 11 applications. 12 [1c] processing the first healthcare data and the second healthcare data with 13 the healthcare application; On information and belief, the remotely hosted 14 application servers host at least one healthcare application that processes healthcare 15 data provided by end users. See 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 http://www.cerner.com/page.aspx?pageid=17179878253. 28 -7COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.8 Page 8 of 12 1 [1d] storing the processed first healthcare data in a first portion of the 2 database associated with the first healthcare enterprise facility and storing the 3 processed second healthcare data in a second portion of the database associated 4 with the second healthcare enterprise facility; Cerner’s Accused Services collect 5 data from multiple healthcare enterprise facilities. On information and belief, to 6 comply with patient privacy and other requirements, data from different healthcare 7 enterprise facilities must be stored in different portions of the database. 8 [1e] configuring the database to accept legacy information derived from a 9 legacy application operating at each of the first and second healthcare enterprise 10 facilities, wherein the functions in the healthcare application are not duplicative of 11 the legacy application; and On information and belief, when providing the Accused 12 Services, Cerner configures remotely hosted databases to accept legacy information 13 from legacy applications operating at the connected healthcare enterprise facilities, 14 where the functions of the remotely hosted applications are not duplicative of the 15 legacy applications. 16 [1f] generating a query to extract information from the database relevant to a 17 respective one of the first and second healthcare enterprise facilities derived from 18 the healthcare data and the legacy information for managing and tracking a 19 performance of the respective one of the first and second healthcare enterprise 20 facilities, On information and belief, Cerner’s remotely hosted system will, in 21 response to a user request, generate a query in order to extract information from the 22 relevant portion of the database, i.e., that portion containing data for the enterprise 23 healthcare facility with which the user is associated, that can be used to manage and 24 track performance of the relevant enterprise healthcare facility. The relevant portion 25 of the database will include data derived from the remote healthcare applications as 26 well as the legacy information. 27 [1g] wherein healthcare data in the first portion of the database is only 28 accessible to the first end user device and healthcare data in the second portion of -8COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.9 Page 9 of 12 1 the database is only accessible to the second end user device. On information and 2 belief, to comply with patient privacy and other requirements, an enterprise 3 healthcare facility will only have access to its data from its portion of the database. 4 17. Cerner has actual knowledge of CliniComp’s rights in the ’647 patent 5 and details of Cerner’s infringement of the ’647 patent based on at least the filing of 6 this Complaint and, based on that knowledge, is also indirectly infringing the ’647 7 patent. 8 18. Cerner manufactures, uses, offers for sale, and/or sells the Accused 9 Services with knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that its actions will 10 induce Cerner’s customers and others to infringe the ’647 patent by at least using 11 those services. 12 19. Cerner actively and knowingly induces its customers and end users to 13 infringe the ’647 patent by publishing information promoting the Accused Services. 14 See, e.g., https://www.cerner.com/solutions/hosting-monitoring; and 15 http://www.cerner.com/page.aspx?pageid=17179878253. 16 20. From at least the filing of this complaint Cerner’s infringement of the 17 ’647 patent has been and continues to be willful, entitling CliniComp to enhanced 18 damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284. 19 21. As the direct and proximate result of Cerner’s conduct, CliniComp has 20 suffered and, if Cerner’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe 21 competitive harm, irreparable injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be 22 proven at trial. Because CliniComp’s remedy at law is inadequate, CliniComp 23 seeks, in addition to damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 24 CliniComp’s business operates in a competitive market and it will continue 25 suffering irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. 26 22. CliniComp is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a 27 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, and 284. 28 -9COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.10 Page 10 of 12 1 23. Cerner’s infringement of the ’647 patent is exceptional and entitles 2 CliniComp to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 3 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CliniComp respectfully requests the following relief: 5 A. Judgment in CliniComp’s favor and against Cerner on all causes of 6 action alleged herein; 7 B. An award of damages to CliniComp in an amount to be further proven 8 at trial; 9 C. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Cerner; 10 D. A finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that 11 CliniComp be awarded its attorneys’ fees; 12 E. An award of treble damages to CliniComp as a result of Cerner’s 13 willful infringement; 14 F. An award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and other 15 expenses; and 16 G. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and 17 proper. 18 /// 19 /// 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.11 Page 11 of 12 1 DATED: December 11, 2017 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP /s/ Amar L. Thakur Amar L. Thakur amarthakur@quinnemanuel.com Bruce Zisser brucezisser@quinnemanuel.com Viola Trebicka violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com Miles D. Freeman milesfreeman@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Fax: (213) 443-3100 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff CliniComp International, Inc. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-02479-GPC-BLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 PageID.12 Page 12 of 12 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiff CliniComp hereby demands trial by jury for all causes of action, 3 claims, or issues in this action that are triable as a matter of right to a jury. 4 5 DATED: December 8, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP /s/ Amar L. Thakur Amar L. Thakur amarthakur@quinnemanuel.com Bruce Zisser brucezisser@quinnemanuel.com Viola Trebicka violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com Miles D. Freeman milesfreeman@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Fax: (213) 443-3100 16 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff CliniComp International, Inc.. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT