Claims Directed to Improved Cardiac Monitoring Technology Are Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

In CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 2019-1149 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s determination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207 were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The ’207 patent claims are directed to techniques for monitoring electrical activity in the heart to detect the presence of atrial fibrillation.  At step one of the Alice test, the district court concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of distinguishing atrial fibrillation by focusing on the variability of the irregular heartbeat. At step two of the Alice test, the district court recognized that the claimed invention “may well improve the field of cardiac telemetry,” but that CardioNet had failed to “identify improvements to any particularized technology.” Thus, the district court found the ’207 patent claims ineligible under § 101 and granted InfoBionic’s motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the claims of the ’207 patent were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather were directed to a patent-eligible improvement to cardiac monitoring technology. The Court explained that the district court erred in oversimplifying the claims and concluding that they were “directed to automating known techniques.” The Court held that the claims were instead directed to specific methods for improving cardiac monitoring technology. The Court also clarified that the Alice step one inquiry can be resolved at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage without assessing the state of the art because it presents a legal question that can be determined without looking outside the intrinsic evidence.

Judge Dyk dissented-in-part, arguing that the majority improperly included “confusing dicta” on the role of extrinsic evidence in the patent-eligibility analysis but agreed that the claims were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.