Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02177/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02177-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRUVEN HEALTH ANALYTICS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02177-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

NO INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 253

On October 6, 2017, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment of non-infringement and partial summary judgment of no indirect infringement.

Defendant contends that the accused products do not “allow[] assignment of an episode of 

care to more than one physician” nor do they “calculate[] weighted episode of care statistics across 

medical conditions utilizing a predefined set for a specific specialty type.” Defendant also 

contends there is no evidence that any Truven customer has used Advantage Suite in an infringing 

manner.

“Summary judgment on the issue of infringement [or noninfringement] is proper when no 

reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim either is or is 

not found in the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” PC 

Connector Solution LLC v. SmarDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Court 

finds that defendant has not met its burden to show that summary judgment is appropriate. There 

are disputes of fact as to whether the accused products perform both of the limitations at issue. 

Further, the Court declines defendant’s request to rewrite the construction of “calculate[] weighted 

episode of care statistics across medical conditions utilizing a predefined set for a specific 

Case 3:15-cv-02177-SI Document 335 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

specialty type.” Finally, plaintiff has submitted evidence that defendant provided training 

materials on how to use Advantage Suite to calculate physician efficiency (Dkt. No. 285-13), thus 

raising a triable issue of fact as to whether any customers used Advantage Suite in an infringing 

manner. See Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1364-65 ((Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing 

summary judgment and holding there was a triable issue of fact on induced infringement where 

there was evidence that accused infringer designed product in an infringing way and instructed 

users to use the product in an infringing way). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02177-SI Document 335 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 2