NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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-Appellee

______________________

2020-1018

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, Judge 

Indira Talwani.

______________________

Decided: July 1, 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; RYAN C. MORRIS, Washington, 

DC. 

 MAXIMILIAN A. GRANT, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2020
2 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.

represented by GABRIEL BELL, DIANE GHRIST;

CHRISTOPHER HENRY, CHARLES SANDERS, Boston, MA. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC 

(collectively “CardioNet”) appeal from a decision of the 

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 

7,212,850 (“’850 patent”) and 7,907,996 (“’996 patent”) are 

ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CardioNet, 

LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, 2018 WL 

1542051 (D. Mass. Mar. 29, 2018); see also CardioNet, LLC 

v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT, 2018 WL 

1788650, at *7 (D. Mass. May 4, 2017). Because the district 

court did not err, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The parties to this appeal are competitors in the field 

of mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT). MCT devices monitor 

the electrical activity of a patient’s heart over an extended 

period of time, analyze the data for anomalies in the electrical activity, such as cardiac arrhythmias, and wirelessly 

transmit the data to a remote monitoring station for storage or further analysis. According to CardioNet, continuous monitoring of cardiac electrical signals generates an 

enormous amount of information—more than can practically be analyzed by a medical technician or physician in 

real-time. The ’850 and ’996 patents (collectively “the asserted patents”) purport to address this problem by analyzing and displaying cardiac information relating to 

arrhythmia events and validating the accuracy of the information based on human review of only a small subset of 

the collected data.

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2020
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 3

The asserted patents, which derive from the same provisional application and share a substantially identical 

written description, describe systems and methods “for presenting information relating to heart data.” ’850 patent 

Abstract.1 A “monitoring system” collects heart rate data 

and analyzes the data to identify arrhythmia events. Id.

col. 3 ll. 8–16. A subset of the collected data is presented 

to a cardiovascular technician separately to identify arrhythmia events. Id. col. 3 ll. 18–22. A “processing system” then compares the events automatically identified by 

the monitoring system with the human identified events 

and, if enough of the human identified events match the 

automatically identified events, the system determines 

that the data are valid. Id. col. 4 ll. 52–56. If the data are

determined to be valid, the processing system displays a 

graph that includes heart rate data as well as “atrial fibrillation burden,” which refers to “the overall amount of time 

that a patient is in atrial fibrillation (or arrhythmia) over 

a specified time period.” Id. col. 3 ll. 37–42. Figure 2 shows 

an example of such a graph:

1 Because the ’850 and ’996 patents share a substantially identical written description, all citations are to the 

’850 patent unless specified otherwise.

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 07/01/2020
4 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.

According to the patents, by determining the validity of the 

automatically analyzed data based on a human assessment 

of only a subset of the data, “the system achieves increased 

accuracy in the presentation of information relating to arrhythmia events while minimizing the data that the [technician] reviews.” Id. col. 4 ll. 61–64.

The district court treated claim 31 of the ’850 patent 

and claim 12 of the ’996 patent as representative of those 

asserted, and CardioNet does not challenge that determination on appeal. Claim 31 of the ’850 patent recites:

31. A system for reporting information related to 

arrhythmia events comprising:

a monitoring system configured to process and report physiological data, including heart rate data, 

for a living being and configured to identify arrhythmia events from the physiological data;

a monitoring station for receiving the physiological 

data from the monitoring system;

a processing system configured to receive arrhythmia information from the monitoring system and 

configured to receive human-assessed arrhythmia 

information from the monitoring station wherein 

the human-assessed arrhythmia information derives from at least a portion of the physiological 

data and wherein the processing system is capable 

of pictographically presenting, using a common 

time scale, information regarding the heart rate 

data during a defined time period and regarding 

duration of arrhythmia event activity, according to 

the identified arrhythmia events, during the defined time period such that heart rate trend is presented with arrhythmia event burden.

’850 patent col. 9 ll. 40–60.

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 07/01/2020
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 5

Claim 12 of the ’996 patent recites similar subject matter:

12. An article comprising a machine-readable medium embodying information indicative of instructions that when performed by one or more 

machines result in operations comprising:

identifying atrial fibrillation events in physiological data obtained for a living being, wherein identifying atrial fibrillation events comprises 

examining the physiological data in multiple time 

intervals, and identifying intervals in which at 

least one atrial fibrillation event has occurred;

obtaining heart rate data for the living being;

receiving a human assessment of a subset of the 

identified atrial fibrillation events; and

based on the human assessment of the subset of the 

identified atrial fibrillation events, pictographically presenting, using a common time scale, information regarding the heart rate data for the 

multiple time intervals during a defined time period in alignment with indications of atrial fibrillation activity for the identified intervals, according 

to the identified atrial fibrillation events, during 

the defined time period such that heart rate trend 

is presented with atrial fibrillation burden, 

wherein pictographically presenting information 

regarding the heart rate data comprises displaying 

for each of the multiple time intervals a range of 

heart rates and a heart rate average.

’996 patent col. 6 l. 53–col. 7 l. 11.

CardioNet asserted the ’850 and ’996 patents, as well 

as two other CardioNet patents not at issue in this appeal,

against InfoBionic in the United States District Court for 

the District of Massachusetts. See Complaint & Jury 

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 07/01/2020
6 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.

Demand, CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv11803-IT (D. Mass. May 8, 2015), ECF No. 1. InfoBionic 

moved for judgment on the pleadings that the asserted 

claims of the ’850 and ’996 patents are ineligible for patent 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court initially addressed claim 31 of the ’850 patent and claim 12 of the ’996

patent as the only claims specifically cited in CardioNet’s 

complaint. The court considered the claims under the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework for determining 

patent-eligibility. At step one, the court held that the 

claims are directed to the abstract idea of “correlating one 

set of data to another.” CardioNet, 2018 WL 1788650, at 

*7. At step two, the court concluded that the claims do not 

include an inventive concept because they only implement 

the traditional practice in the medical field of seeking a second opinion using conventional hardware. Id. at 15–16. 

After soliciting additional briefing from the parties, the 

court determined that claim 31 of the ’850 patent and claim 

12 of the ’996 patent are representative of the asserted 

claims and entered partial final judgment under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b) that all asserted claims of the ’850 and ’996 

patents are ineligible under § 101. CardioNet, 2018 WL 

1542051, at *7.

CardioNet appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s grant of judgment on the 

pleadings under Rule 12(c) according 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 orders granting judgment 

on the pleadings de novo. Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 

F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007).

Patent eligibility under § 101 is an issue of law that 

may involve underlying issues of fact. See Berkheimer v. 

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 07/01/2020
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 7

HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Mortg. 

Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 

1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We review the district court’s ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo. Id. To determine whether a patent claims eligible 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. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 

U.S. 66, 70–73 (2012). First, we determine whether the 

claims are directed to a law of nature, natural phenomena, 

or abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo, 566 

U.S. at 76–78). If not, then the claims are patent-eligible,

and the inquiry is over. If so, we proceed to the second step 

and determine whether the claims nonetheless include an 

“inventive concept” sufficient to “‘transform the nature of 

the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting 

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 78).

On appeal, CardioNet argues that the asserted claims 

are not directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, but rather to technological improvements to cardiac monitoring 

systems. According to CardioNet, the claims provide a new 

data analysis process that improves cardiac monitoring 

technology by enabling physicians to view heart rate trend 

data and atrial fibrillation burden on a common time scale. 

Even if directed to an abstract idea, CardioNet argues that 

(1) the combination of machine and human review of cardiac data, and (2) the use of atrial fibrillation burden—an 

“entirely new metric”—are inventive concepts sufficient to 

transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. 

Appellants’ Br. 54–55.

InfoBionic responds that the claims merely recite collecting, analyzing, and displaying cardiac data—quintessential abstract concepts—not any particular technology 

for performing those functions. And because the claims recite only conventional steps performed by conventional 

hardware, InfoBionic argues, the claims do not otherwise 

include an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility.

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 07/01/2020
8 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.

We agree with InfoBionic. At step one, we conclude 

that the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and 

displaying data, which we have repeatedly held to be abstract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom 

S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting 

cases); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 

2014).

While some of the claims are couched as systems or articles, they essentially recite and are directed to collecting, 

analyzing, and displaying data by conventional means. 

They begin by collecting physiological data. The specifications explain that a monitoring system “monitors and reports physiological data,” which can be analyzed and 

“arrhythmia events can be identified based on predetermined criteria.” ’850 patent col. 3 ll. 12–16. The identified 

events are “correlated” with events identified by a parallel 

human assessment to determine whether the events are 

valid. Id. col. 3 ll. 31–37. However, the claims are not directed to specific methods for identifying cardiac events or 

determining correlation between machine- and humanidentified events, nor do the specifications disclose specific 

methods for doing so. Instead, the claims and specifications treat those steps as conventional processes, and 

therefore the claims cannot be said to require anything 

more than generic data analysis.

If the machine-identified events are determined to be 

valid, “the system generates a report relating to both heart 

rate trend and arrhythmia events.” ’850 patent col. 3 

ll. 37–42. But merely displaying data by conventional 

methods as part of a series of abstract steps is itself an abstract concept. See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG 

LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Univ. of 

Florida Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 

1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). CardioNet argues that the display of heart rate data and atrial fibrillation burden on a 

“common time scale” is an improvement over prior art 

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 07/01/2020
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 9

cardiac monitoring systems because the graph “can be used 

for asymptomatic AF detection, drug therapy (rate, 

rhythm, anti-coagulants), pre/post ablation monitoring, 

and CHF (congestive heart failure) decompensation.” Appellants’ Br. 40 (quoting ’850 patent col. 1 ll. 56–60). However, displaying data, including displaying two data series 

on the same time axis, is not the sort of “improvement[] to 

existing technological processes and computer technology” 

capable of establishing the eligibility of computer-implemented method claims, see Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2019), 

and does not make the claimed methods non-abstract despite its alleged utility. CardioNet’s unified display may be 

very useful to physicians, but usefulness alone does not 

necessarily negate abstractness. See Ass’n for Molecular 

Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2012) 

(“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery 

does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” (citing Funk 

Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948))). 

Accordingly, we conclude that the claims are directed to the 

abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data.

Having concluded that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we consider whether they describe an inventive 

concept at step two. CardioNet principally argues that the 

combination of machine and human review of cardiac data 

as well as the use of atrial fibrillation burden are inventive 

concepts sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. InfoBionic argues that the claims recite generic systems for performing conventional functions 

without specifying any inventive means for doing so.

We agree with InfoBionic. While some claims are cast 

as systems and articles, they are implemented on generic 

“monitoring systems,” “monitoring stations,” and “processing systems” which, according to the specification, can 

be implantable medical devices and computing systems. 

Ultimately, the claims depend on methods that can be performed on any general-purpose computing device without 

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 9 Filed: 07/01/2020
10 CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.

reciting or requiring any nonconventional components or 

characteristics. Additionally, the steps themselves recite 

conventional data processing functions, such as obtaining 

data, analyzing the data to identify features therein, and 

displaying the data, and do not recite any specific or inventive steps for doing so.

CardioNet identifies two claimed features that it argues are sufficiently inventive to confer patent-eligibility 

on otherwise abstract claims. First, CardioNet argues that 

combining automatic atrial fibrillation detection capabilities with human review of a subset of data improves accuracy in atrial fibrillation diagnosis while minimizing the 

data that must be manually reviewed. Appellants’ Br. 45. 

But spot-checking systems for quality control is the sort of 

longstanding practice that courts have consistently held to 

be an abstract idea and is performed here using generic 

hardware. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611–12

(2010) (holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible); 

FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 

1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding claims directed to the concept of analyzing records of human activity to detect suspicious behavior ineligible). Second, CardioNet argues that 

measuring the atrial fibrillation burden is a new metric developed by the inventors that improves cardiac monitoring 

by aiding physicians in assessing the severity of an arrhythmia event. Appellants’ Br. 55. InfoBionic disputes

whether atrial fibrillation burden was in fact a new metric. 

Appellee’s Br. 44. Even assuming that measuring the 

atrial fibrillation burden is a new metric as CardioNet 

claims, it is at most a mathematical computation performed on a general-purpose computing device, which 

could otherwise be “performed by a human, mentally or 

with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because the claim limitations, considered individually or 

collectively, amount only to implementations of abstract 

ideas using conventional technology, we conclude that the 

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 10 Filed: 07/01/2020
CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC. 11

claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to 

transform the claims into patent-eligible applications.

CONCLUSION

We have considered CardioNet’s remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the 

judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1018 Document: 45 Page: 11 Filed: 07/01/2020