Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 33
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`CARDIONET, LLC, BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING,
`LLC,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`INFOBIONIC, INC,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2019-1149
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Massachusetts in No. 1:17-cv-10445-IT, Judge
`Indira Talwani.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 17, 2020
`______________________
`
`CHING-LEE FUKUDA, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY,
`argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by
`BRADFORD J. BADKE, TODD MATTHEW SIMPSON; NATHAN A.
`GREENBLATT, Palo Alto, CA.
`
` GABRIEL BELL, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington,
`DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT; CHARLES SANDERS, Boston, MA.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, PLAGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 33
`
`2
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.
`Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in the result
`filed by Circuit Judge DYK.
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC
`(collectively, “CardioNet”) appeal the district court’s dis-
`missal of their patent infringement complaint against In-
`foBionic, Inc. The district court held that the asserted
`claims of CardioNet’s U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207 are ineli-
`gible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and therefore the complaint
`failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
`dure 12(b)(6). We conclude instead that the asserted
`claims of the ’207 patent are directed to a patent-eligible
`improvement to cardiac monitoring technology and are not
`directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, we reverse the
`district court and remand for further proceedings.
`BACKGROUND
`I
`Anomalies in the electrical activity of a patient’s heart
`can indicate the presence of certain physiological condi-
`tions ranging from benign to life-threatening. Among those
`conditions are various different types of cardiac arrythmias
`(abnormal heart rhythms), including atrial fibrillation,
`atrial flutter, normal sinus rhythm irregularity, irregular-
`ity from various types of heart blocks, irregularity associ-
`ated with premature ventricular contractions, and
`ventricular tachycardia.
`Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter involve “the loss of
`synchrony between the atria and the ventricles” of the
`heart. ’207 patent col. 1 ll. 24–25, 34–35. A patient may
`experience “short” or “sustained” episodes of atrial fibrilla-
`tion or atrial flutter. Short episodes “generally include be-
`tween two and 20 [heart]beats and may or may not have
`clinical significan[ce].” Id. at col. 5 ll. 33–35. By contrast,
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`3
`
`sustained episodes “generally include more than 20 beats
`and may have relatively greater clinical significance.” Id.
`at col. 5 ll. 35–37. Atrial fibrillation “can lead to irregular
`ventricular beating as well as blood stagnation and clotting
`in the atria.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 27–28. Both atrial fibrillation
`and atrial flutter are “associated with stroke, congestive
`heart failure, and cardiomyopathy.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 31–32,
`40–42.
`Ventricular tachycardia, or V-TACH, is another form of
`cardiac arrythmia and is characterized by “a rapid succes-
`sion of ventricular contractions (e.g., between 140 and 220
`per minute) generally caused by an abnormal focus of elec-
`trical activity in a ventricle.” Id. at col. 9 ll. 41–44. Ven-
`tricular beats “are irregular beats that interrupt the
`normal heart rhythm” and that “may be precipitated by
`factors such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and stress.” Id.
`at col. 9 ll. 10–12, 19–20. The “occurrence of ventricular
`beats can be used to identify ventricular tachycardia (e.g.,
`when there are three or more consecutive ventricular
`beats).” Id. at col. 9 ll. 16–19. V-TACH “can last from a
`few seconds to several days and can be caused by serious
`heart conditions such as a myocardial infarction.” Id.
`at col. 9 ll. 44–46.
`The ’207 patent is titled “Cardiac Monitoring” and
`claims priority to an application filed on January 21, 2004.
`The ’207 patent describes cardiac monitoring systems and
`techniques for detecting and distinguishing atrial fibrilla-
`tion and atrial flutter from other various forms of cardiac
`arrythmia. Electrical signals of the heart can be measured
`by placing electrodes on a patient’s skin. Id. at col. 1 ll. 17–
`20, col. 5 ll. 1–7. The patent teaches that its systems and
`techniques determine the beat-to-beat variability in heart
`rate over a series of successive heartbeats. Specifically,
`they determine the variability in heart rate “over a series
`of between 20 and 200 of the recent R to R intervals,” or the
`timing between “R-waves.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 4–6, 47–49. An
`R-wave is the peak of what is referred to as the “QRS
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 33
`
`4
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`complex” of an electrocardiogram signal, as illustrated in
`Figure 2 below. The QRS complexes (items 215, 220, and
`225 of Figure 2) of the signal correspond to the contractions
`of the ventricles. Id. at col. 4 ll. 53–58.
`
`Id. Fig. 2. A schematic of the ’207 patent’s cardiac moni-
`toring system is shown below in Figure 8:
`
`Id. Fig. 8. The written description explains that in detect-
`ing atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, the systems and
`techniques include accounting for the presence of irregular
`ventricular beats, which are “negatively indicative” of
`atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Id. at col. 1 ll. 61–65,
`col. 2 ll. 53–61. The patent recognizes that the “occurrence
`of ventricular beats is generally unrelated to” atrial
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 5 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`5
`
`fibrillation and atrial flutter, whereas it is indicative of V-
`TACH. Id. at col. 9 ll. 15–19. The patent’s systems and
`techniques also analyze information regarding the time pe-
`riod between ventricular contractions (i.e., the R to R inter-
`val) to detect atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter using non-
`linear statistical approaches. Id. at col. 1 ll. 49–54, col. 5
`ll. 40–44. Figure 10 depicts an embodiment of the ’207 pa-
`tent’s system employing these techniques:
`
` Id. Fig. 10.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 6 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 33
`
`6
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`Claims 1–3, 7, 10–12, and 22 are at issue on appeal.
`The claims are drawn to a device for detecting and report-
`ing the presence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in a
`patient. Specifically, the device detects beat-to-beat timing
`of cardiac activity, detects premature ventricular beats (ir-
`regular beats that interrupt the normal heart rhythm),1
`and determines the relevance of the beat-to-beat timing to
`atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, taking into account the
`variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature
`ventricular beats.
`Independent claim 1 recites:
`1. A device, comprising:
`a beat detector to identify a beat-to-beat timing of
`cardiac activity;
`a ventricular beat detector to identify ventricular
`beats in the cardiac activity;
`variability determination logic to determine a var-
`iability in the beat-to-beat timing of a collection of
`beats;
`relevance determination logic to identify a rele-
`vance of the variability in the beat-to-beat timing
`to at least one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flut-
`ter; and
`an event generator to generate an event when the
`variability in the beat-to-beat timing is identified
`as relevant to the at least one of atrial fibrillation
`
`
`1 For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the district
`court adopted CardioNet’s construction of the term “ven-
`tricular beats” to mean “premature ventricular beats that
`are irregular beats that interrupt the normal heart
`rhythm.” CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 348 F. Supp.
`3d 87, 96 n.4 (D. Mass. 2018) (citation omitted).
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 7 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 7 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`7
`
`and atrial flutter in light of the variability in the
`beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats
`identified by the ventricular beat detector.
`Id. at col. 12 ll. 12–27.
`Dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 10–12 depend from
`claim 1 and further define the features of the device or its
`operation:
`2. The device of claim 1, wherein the relevance de-
`termination logic is to accommodate variability in
`the beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats
`by weighting ventricular beats as being negatively
`indicative of the one of atrial fibrillation and atrial
`flutter.
`3. The device of claim 1, wherein the variability
`determination logic is to compare times between R-
`waves in three successive QRS complexes to deter-
`mine the variability in the beat-to-beat timing.
`***
`7. The device of claim 1, wherein the event gener-
`ator is to generate an event by performing opera-
`tions comprising: collecting data associated with
`the collection of beats; and transmitting the data
`associated with the collection of beats to a remote
`receiver.
`
`***
`10. The device of claim 1, wherein the relevance de-
`termination logic comprises logic to identify the rel-
`evance of the variability using a non-linear
`function of a beat-to-beat interval.
`11. The device of claim 1, wherein the beat detector
`comprises a QRS detector.
`12. The device of claim 1, further comprising a sen-
`sor that includes two or more body surface
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 8 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 8 of 33
`
`8
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`electrodes subject to one or more potential differ-
`ences related to cardiac activity.
`Id. at col. 12 ll. 28–36, 52–56, col. 13 ll. 5–13.
`Similar to claim 2, dependent claim 22 recites
`“weighting” ventricular beats as being negatively indica-
`tive of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter:
`22. The article of claim 20,2 determining the rele-
`vance comprises: identifying a beat of the collection
`as a ventricular beat, and weighting the beat as be-
`ing negatively indicative of the one of atrial fibril-
`lation and atrial flutter.
`Id. at col. 14 ll. 39–43.
`The ’207 patent describes a number of advantages
`achieved by the claimed cardiac monitoring device. For in-
`stance, by analyzing the beat-to-beat timing for atrial fi-
`brillation or atrial flutter while also taking into account the
`
`
`
`2 Claim 20 recites:
`An article comprising one or more machine-reada-
`ble media storing instructions operable to cause
`one or more machines to perform operations, the
`operations comprising: determining a beat-to-beat
`variability in cardiac electrical activity; determin-
`ing a relevance of the variability over a collection of
`beats to one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter
`using a non-linear function of a beat-to-beat inter-
`val; and identifying one of an atrial fibrillation
`event and an atrial flutter event based on the de-
`termined relevance, the event being a period in
`time when the information content of the cardiac
`electrical activity is of increased relevance to the
`one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.
`Id. at col. 14 ll. 12–24.
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 9 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 9 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`9
`
`variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature
`ventricular beats, the device can more accurately distin-
`guish atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter from other types
`of arrythmias and has “improved positive predictability” of
`atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Id. at col. 3 ll. 6–16.
`The written description states that when the device was
`used to analyze the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database in
`Cambridge, Massachusetts, “a sensitivity to [these two ar-
`rhythmias] in excess of 90% and a positive predictivity in
`excess of 96% were obtained.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 21–26. In
`other words, the device reports few false negatives and
`false positives when used to detect atrial fibrillation or
`atrial flutter. In addition, the device is able to identify
`“sustained” episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter,
`which have “increased clinical significance” compared to
`“short” episodes. Id. at col. 3 ll. 16–20. Moreover, the de-
`vice is “well-adapted to monitoring cardiac signals of am-
`bulatory patients who are away
`from controlled
`environments such as hospital beds or treatment facili-
`ties,” and whose cardiac signals “may be noisier and other-
`wise strongly impacted by the patients’ heightened levels
`of activity.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 27–34. The device is also “well-
`adapted to real-time monitoring of arrhythmia patients,
`where minimal delays in distinguishing between different
`types of cardiac arrhythmia can speed the delivery of any
`urgent medical care.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 35–39. Lastly, the
`device is advantageous in that it “require[s] minimal com-
`putational resources” and “do[es] not require training be-
`fore different types of cardiac arrhythmia can be
`distinguished.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 39–43.
`II
`InfoBionic filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
`a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the as-
`serted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject mat-
`ter under § 101. The district court determined that the
`’207 patent claims are ineligible under § 101, applying the
`Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 10 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 10 of 33
`
`10
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`patent eligibility. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`At step one, the district court concluded that the claims
`are directed to the abstract idea that atrial fibrillation and
`atrial flutter “can be distinguished by focusing on the vari-
`ability of the irregular heartbeat.” CardioNet, LLC v. Info-
`Bionic, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 87, 93 (D. Mass. 2018) (District
`Court Op.); see also id. at 97 (further defining the abstract
`idea as “identifying” atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter “by
`looking at the variability in time between heartbeats and
`taking into account ventricular beats”). The district court
`rejected CardioNet’s argument that the claimed invention
`“represents an improvement to the function of cardiac mon-
`itoring devices,” including “more accurate and clinically
`significant” detection of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.
`Id. at 93 (citation omitted). The district court concluded
`that although the “idea of using a machine to monitor and
`analyze heart beat variability and interfering beats so as
`to alert the user of potential [atrial fibrillation or atrial
`flutter] events may well improve the field of cardiac telem-
`etry,” CardioNet “d[id] not identify improvements to any
`particular computerized technology.” Id.
`CardioNet appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We apply regional circuit law when reviewing the dis-
`trict court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a
`claim. Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative
`Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 749 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The First
`Circuit reviews such dismissals de novo, accepting as true
`all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and drawing
`all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
`In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 814 F.3d 538, 549
`(1st Cir. 2016). Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question
`of law that may contain underlying issues of fact. See
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 11 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 11 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`11
`
`882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Berkheimer v. HP
`Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We review de
`novo a determination that a claim is directed to patent-in-
`eligible subject matter. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365.
`I
`Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discov-
`ers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`The Supreme Court has identified three types of subject
`matter that are not patent-eligible: “Laws of nature, natu-
`ral phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Al-
`ice, 573 U.S. at 216 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
`v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
`In Alice, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step test
`for examining patent eligibility when a patent claim is al-
`leged to involve one of these three types of subject matter.
`The “abstract ideas” category, the subject matter at issue
`in this case, embodies “the longstanding rule that ‘[a]n idea
`of itself is not patentable.’” Id. at 218 (alteration in origi-
`nal) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`The Supreme Court recognized, however, that “[a]t some
`level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
`apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
`ideas.’” Id. at 217 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
`71 (2012)). “Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible
`for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept.”
`Id. Rather, “applications” of abstract concepts “to a new
`and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.”
`Id. (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67).
`At step one, we consider the claims “in their entirety to
`ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to
`excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
`Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quot-
`ing Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 12 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 12 of 33
`
`12
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC
`v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e
`have described the first-stage inquiry as looking at the ‘fo-
`cus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” (citations
`omitted)). We also consider the patent’s written descrip-
`tion, as it informs our understanding of the claims. See
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d
`1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he specification [is] helpful
`in illuminating what a claim is ‘directed to.’” (alterations in
`original) (citation omitted)). “If the claims are not directed
`to a patent-ineligible concept under Alice step 1, ‘the claims
`satisfy § 101 and we need not proceed to the second step.’”
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1007
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`“If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible con-
`cept, however, we next consider Alice step two.” Id. In this
`step, we consider “the elements of each claim both individ-
`ually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
`whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of
`the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice,
`573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). This
`second step is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an
`element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to en-
`sure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
`more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id.
`at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
`at 72–73).
`
`II
`We begin our analysis with Alice step one. In doing so,
`we look to whether the claims “focus on a specific means or
`method that improves the relevant technology or are in-
`stead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract
`idea and merely invoke generic processes and machin-
`ery.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (citations omitted). We hold
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 13 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 13 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`13
`
`that the asserted claims of the ’207 patent are directed to
`patent-eligible subject matter.
`A
`When read as a whole, and in light of the written de-
`scription, we conclude that claim 1 of the ’207 patent is di-
`rected to an improved cardiac monitoring device and not to
`an abstract idea. In particular, the language of claim 1 in-
`dicates that it is directed to a device that detects beat-to-
`beat timing of cardiac activity, detects premature ventric-
`ular beats, and determines the relevance of the beat-to-
`beat timing to atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, taking into
`account the variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by
`premature ventricular beats identified by the device’s ven-
`tricular beat detector. In our view, the claims “focus on a
`specific means or method that improves” cardiac monitor-
`ing technology; they are not “directed to a result or effect
`that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic
`processes and machinery.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (cita-
`tions omitted).
`The written description confirms our conclusion. It ex-
`plains that, by identifying “variability in the beat-to-beat
`timing . . . as relevant to the at least one of atrial fibrilla-
`tion and atrial flutter in light of the variability in the beat-
`to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats identified by the
`ventricular beat detector,” the claimed invention achieves
`multiple technological improvements. First and foremost,
`the device more accurately detects the occurrence of atrial
`fibrillation and atrial flutter—as distinct from V-TACH
`and other arrhythmias—and allows for more reliable and
`immediate treatment of these two medical conditions.
`’207 patent col. 3 ll. 6–16, 21–26, 35–39. Indeed, the writ-
`ten description reports that when analyzing real-world ar-
`rythmia data, the device demonstrated both high “positive
`predictivity” of, and high “sensitivity” to, atrial fibrillation
`and atrial flutter, meaning that it effectively avoids false
`positives and false negatives, respectively, in detecting
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 14 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 14 of 33
`
`14
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`these two conditions. Id. at col. 3 ll. 21–26. In addition,
`the device is able to identify sustained episodes of atrial
`fibrillation and atrial flutter that have “increased clinical
`significance.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 16–20.
`The dependent claims are similarly directed to patent-
`eligible subject matter, as they further specify the physical
`features or operation of the device of claim 1. For instance,
`claim 2 additionally requires “weighting” ventricular beats
`“as being negatively indicative of the one of atrial fibrilla-
`tion and atrial flutter.” Claim 22, which depends from in-
`dependent claim 20, recites a similar limitation. Claim 3
`is additionally directed to “compar[ing] times between R-
`waves in three successive QRS complexes to determine the
`variability in the beat-to-beat timing.” Claim 7 is addition-
`ally directed to “transmitting the data associated with the
`collection of beats to a remote receiver.” Claim 10 addition-
`ally requires “using a non-linear function of a beat-to-beat
`interval.” Claim 11 is additionally directed to the use of a
`“QRS detector.” Finally, claim 12 is additionally directed
`to using “a sensor that includes two or more body surface
`electrodes subject to one or more potential differences re-
`lated to cardiac activity.” Thus, each of these dependent
`claims narrows the device’s specific technical features or
`operations.
`We agree with CardioNet that the claims of the ’207 pa-
`tent are akin to claims we have previously determined are
`directed to technological improvements. For instance, the
`asserted claims are similar to those we held eligible in Vis-
`ual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir.
`2017). There, the claims recited a “computer memory sys-
`tem” that used “programmable operational characteristics”
`of a computer’s cache memory based on the type of proces-
`sor connected to the memory system. Id. at 1257. On ap-
`peal from a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we held under
`Alice step one that the claims were “directed to an im-
`proved computer memory system, not to the abstract idea
`of categorical data storage.” Id. at 1259. Important to our
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 15 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 15 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`15
`
`determination was the fact that the written description de-
`scribed technical “advantages offered by” the claimed
`memory system. Id. at 1259–60. In particular, the written
`description explained that the claimed system was able to
`accommodate “different types of processors . . . without sig-
`nificantly compromising their individual performance” and
`“outperform[ed] a prior art memory system . . . armed with
`‘a cache many times larger than the cumulative size of the
`subject caches.’” Id. at 1259 (citations omitted). Weighing
`“all factual inferences drawn from the specification . . . in
`favor of Visual Memory, the non-moving party,” we re-
`versed the district court’s decision that the claims were in-
`eligible. Id. at 1262.
`Similarly, here, the ’207 patent’s written description
`identifies a number of advantages gained by the elements
`recited in the claimed cardiac monitoring device. By ana-
`lyzing the “variability in the beat-to-beat timing” for “atrial
`fibrillation and atrial flutter in light of the variability in
`the beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats identi-
`fied by the ventricular beat detector,” the claimed inven-
`tion more accurately detects the occurrence of atrial
`fibrillation and atrial flutter, as distinct from V-TACH and
`other arrhythmias. ’207 patent col. 3 ll. 6–16, 21–26, 35–
`39. We accept those statements as true and consider them
`important in our determination that the claims are drawn
`to a technological improvement.
`The ’207 patent claims are also similar to those we held
`eligible in McRO. The patent at issue in McRO claimed a
`“method for automatically animating lip synchronization
`and facial expression of three-dimensional characters.”
`837 F.3d at 1307. We reversed the district court’s grant of
`judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
`cedure 12(c) that the claims were directed to an abstract
`idea. We held under Alice step one that the claims were
`directed to “a specific asserted improvement in computer
`animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular
`type.” Id. at 1314. The written description confirmed that
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 16 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 16 of 33
`
`16
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`the “claimed improvement” was “allowing computers to
`produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and fa-
`cial expressions in animated characters that previously
`could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We re-
`jected the argument that the claims “simply use a com-
`puter as a tool to automate conventional activity” because
`there was no evidence in the record that “the process pre-
`viously used by animators [wa]s the same as the process
`required by the claims.” Id. at 1314. The specification
`made “no suggestion that animators were previously em-
`ploying the type of rules required by” the claims. Id. In
`fact, the evidence in the record showed that the traditional
`process and claimed method produced realistic animations
`of facial movements in fundamentally different ways. Id.
`In this case, there is likewise no suggestion in the
`’207 patent’s written description that doctors were “previ-
`ously employing” the techniques performed on the claimed
`device. Nothing in the record in this case suggests that the
`claims merely computerize pre-existing techniques for di-
`agnosing atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Moreover, as
`in McRO, the written description of the ’207 patent con-
`firms that the asserted claims are directed to a specific
`technological improvement—an improved medical device
`that achieves speedier, more accurate, and clinically signif-
`icant detection of two specific medical conditions out of a
`host of possible heart conditions.
`B
`At the heart of the district court’s erroneous step one
`analysis is the incorrect assumption that the claims are di-
`rected to automating known techniques. See District Court
`Op., 348 F. Supp. 3d at 93. InfoBionic reiterates this argu-
`ment on appeal, asserting that “the claims are drawn to
`automating basic diagnostic processes that doctors have
`long used.” Appellee’s Br. 2; see also id. at 11 (“The claims
`recite the basic steps that any doctor could (and would)
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 17 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 17 of 33
`
`CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC
`
`
`
`17
`
`perform to make such diagnoses—collecting and analyzing
`a patient’s heartbeat data.”); id. at 12 (“[T]he claims use
`computers as mere tools to automate basic human steps.”);
`id. at 20 (“[C]laim 1 is nothing more than a computerized
`version of a doctor’s approach to diagnosis.”). But the writ-
`ten description does not disclose that doctors performed the
`same techniques as the claimed device in diagnosing atrial
`fibrillation or atrial flutter. Indeed, as discussed above,
`nothing in the record supports the district court’s fact find-
`ing (and InfoBionic’s assertion) that doctors long used the
`claimed diagnostic processes. The district court’s assump-
`tion also seems incongruous with the claimed subject mat-
`ter. For example, it is difficult to fathom how doctors
`mentally or manually used “logic to identify the relevance
`of the variability [in the beat-to-beat timing] using a non-
`linear function of a beat-to-beat interval” as required by
`claim 10. For all these reasons, the district court erred by
`holding that the claims are abstract based on this errone-
`ous finding.
`Likewise, the district court erred by disregarding the
`written description’s recitation of the advantages of the
`claimed invention. In opposing InfoBionic’s motion, Cardi-
`oNet had argued that, based on the patent’s disclosure, the
`claimed invention “achieve[s] more accurate and clinically
`significant” detection of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter,
`and thereby constitutes an improvement to cardiac moni-
`toring technology as opposed to an abstract idea. District
`Court Op., 348 F. Supp. 3d at 93 (citation omitted). The
`district court dismissed this argument, concluding that
`CardioNet did “not identify improvements to any particu-
`lar computerized technology.” Id. On a motion to dismiss
`under Rule 12(b)(6), however, the district court must con-
`strue all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
`of CardioNet, the non-moving party. See Athena, 915 F.3d
`at 749. Here, there is no record evidence undermining the
`statements in the written description concerning the bene-
`fits of the claimed device. The district court’s finding is
`
`

`

`Case: 19-1149 Document: 56 Page: 18 Filed: 04/17/2020
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 76-4 Filed 07/06/20 Page 18 of 33
`
`18
`
`CARDI