NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC, CARDIONET, 

LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

THE SCOTTCARE CORPORATION, AMBUCOR 

HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2019-2263

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 2:12-cv-02516-

PBT, Judge Petrese B. Tucker.

______________________

Decided: July 1, 2020

______________________

RYAN C. MORRIS, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by 

CHING-LEE FUKUDA, BRADFORD J. BADKE, TODD MATTHEW 

SIMPSON, New York, NY; NATHAN A. GREENBLATT, Palo 

Alto, CA. 

 KEVIN DOOLEY KENT, Conrad O'Brien, Philadelphia, 

PA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by 

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

2

JOHN GUERNSEY, MEGHAN A. FARLEY, ANDREW S.

GALLINARO. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Braemar Manufacturing, LLC and CardioNet, LLC 

(collectively “CardioNet”) appeal from two decisions of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 7,941,207 (“the ’207 patent), 7,212,850 (“the ’850 patent”), 7,907,996 (“the ’996 patent”), and 7,587,237 (“the 

’237 patent”) are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 101. CardioNet, LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 388 F. Supp. 3d 

442 (E.D. Pa. 2019); CardioNet, LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 

325 F. Supp. 3d 607 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

In light of our recent decisions in CardioNet, LLC v. 

InfoBionic, Inc., No. 20-1018 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020), and 

CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 

2020), we affirm as to the ’850 and ’996 patents, vacate the 

district court’s judgment of ineligibility of the asserted 

claims of the ’207 patent, and remand for further 

proceedings on the ’207 patent. Because we conclude that 

the asserted claims of the ’237 patent recite patentineligible subject matter, we affirm the district court’s 

decision with respect to that patent.

BACKGROUND

CardioNet owns the ’207, ’850, ’996, and ’237 patents

(collectively “the asserted patents”), which are generally directed to systems and methods for cardiac monitoring. In 

2012, CardioNet sued The ScottCare Corporation 

(“ScottCare”) for infringement of the asserted patents in 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Subsequently in 

2015, CardioNet sued InfoBionic, Inc. for infringement of 

the ’850 and ’996 patents in the District of Massachusetts. 

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

3

In 2017, CardioNet brought an additional claim against InfoBionic in the District of Massachusetts for infringement 

of the ’207 patent.

On May 4, 2017, the Massachusetts district court issued an order determining that certain claims of the ’850 

and ’996 patents are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 101. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 2017 WL 

1788650 (D. Mass. 2017) (“’850/’996 Mass. Decision”). 

Thereafter, in this case, ScottCare filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the ’850 and ’996 patents, arguing that CardioNet was collaterally estopped from 

continuing to assert infringement of those patents based on

the determination of ineligibility in the ’850/’996 Mass. Decision. The Pennsylvania district court granted 

ScottCare’s motion on July 12, 2018. CardioNet, LLC v. 

ScottCare Corp., 325 F. Supp. 3d 607, 613 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

On September 11, 2018, ScottCare filed an additional 

motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the asserted claims of the ’207 and ’237 patents are ineligible for 

patent under § 101. Before the Pennsylvania district court 

ruled on ScottCare’s motion, the Massachusetts district 

court issued a second order determining that claims 1–3, 7, 

10–12, and 22 of the ’207 patent are ineligible for patent 

under § 101. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 348 F. 

Supp. 3d. 87 (D. Mass. 2018) (“’207 Mass. Decision”). In 

this case, CardioNet also asserted claims 8, 9, 21, and 23 of 

the ’207 patent. ScottCare filed additional briefing in the 

Pennsylvania district court arguing that CardioNet was 

collaterally estopped from continuing to assert infringement of all asserted claims of the ’207 patent based on the

’207 Mass. Decision, including the claims that were not specifically addressed by the Massachusetts district court.

On July 11, 2019, the Pennsylvania district court 

granted ScottCare’s motion. CardioNet, LLC v. ScottCare 

Corp., 388 F. Supp. 3d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (“’207/’237 Pa. 

Decision”). Regarding the ’207 patent, the district court 

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

4

held that CardioNet was collaterally estopped from asserting claims 1–3, 7, 10–12, and 22 of the ’207 patent based on 

the ’207 Mass. Decision. Id. at 460. The court held that 

CardioNet was also collaterally estopped from asserting 

claims 8, 9, 21, and 23, which were not addressed in the 

’207 Mass. Decision, because the court determined that the

differences between those claims and the previously-adjudicated claims do not materially alter the question of validity under § 101. Id. at 462–66.

Regarding the ’237 patent, the court determined that 

the asserted claims are ineligible for patent under § 101.

The district court treated claims 25 and 37 as representative of those asserted, and CardioNet does not challenge 

that determination on appeal. Claim 37 recites:

37. An article comprising one or more machinereadable media storing instructions operable to 

cause one or more machines to perform operations 

for monitoring a cardiac biological signal using 

electrocardiographic monitoring instrumentation, 

the operations comprising:

receiving a cardiac biological signal that includes 

information describing events, wherein events 

comprise periods in time when an information content of the cardiac biological signal is of increased 

relevance to a particular purpose and the events 

are demarcated by periods of time that are not of 

increased relevance to the particular purpose;

determining a measure of merit of information describing each event, wherein the measure of merit 

embodies both the severity of the cardiac condition 

indicated by the information describing the event 

and an amount of noise in the information describing the event;

comparing the measure of merit of information describing the event with a merit criterion;

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

5

transmitting, for medical purposes, information describing a first proper subset of the events that 

have measures of merit meeting the merit criterion 

to a remote medical receiver; and

discarding information describing a second proper 

subset of the events that have measures of merit 

that fail to meet the merit criterion.

’237 patent col. 18 l. 59–col. 20 l. 3.

The district court considered the claims of the ’237 patent under the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework 

for determining patent-eligibility. At step one, the court 

determined that the claims are directed to the abstract idea 

of “collecting, classifying, or otherwise filtering data into 

different groups based on identifying characteristics and 

transmitting relevant information for review.” ’207/’237 

Pa. Decision, 388 F. Supp. 3d at 454. At step two, the court 

concluded that “[t]he claim elements, individually or collectively, recite performing the abstract idea with conventional technology and fail to provide any specific, inventive 

technological improvement.” Id. at 456.

The district court entered final judgment of patent invalidity of the ’207, ’237, ’850, and ’996 patents in favor of 

ScottCare, and 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 Third Circuit reviews orders granting judgment on the pleadings de novo. Zimmerman v. Corbett, 873 

F.3d 414, 417 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Allah v. Al–Hafeez, 226 

F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir. 2000)).

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

6

I. ’207 Patent

This court recently reversed the ’207 Mass. Decision

and held that claims 1–3, 7, 10–12, and 22 of the ’207 are 

patent-eligible. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 

F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Here, CardioNet has also asserted claims 8, 9, 21, and 23. Because the judgment underlying the district court’s application of collateral 

estoppel has been reversed, we vacate the district court’s 

judgment of ineligibility of all of the asserted claims of the 

’207 patent and remand for further proceedings.

II. ’850 and ’996 Patents

This court recently affirmed the ’850/’996 Mass. Decision holding that claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–9, 21, and 31–32 of the 

’850 patent and claims 12 and 23 of the ’996 patent are patent-ineligible. CardioNet v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 20-1018, 

slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020). Here, CardioNet has 

asserted claims 31 and 32 of the ’850 patent and claims 1, 

12, and 23 of the ’996 patent. Because the judgment underlying the district court’s application of collateral estoppel has been affirmed and CardioNet does not otherwise 

argue that the district court erred in its application of the 

doctrine, we affirm the district court’s judgment of invalidity of claims 31 and 32 of the ’850 patent and claims 12 and 

23 of the ’996 patent. Because claim 1 of the ’996 patent 

recites materially indistinct subject matter from claim 12, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment of invalidity of that 

claim as well.

III. ’237 Patent

We now address the eligibility of the asserted claims of 

the ’237 patent. Patent eligibility under § 101 is an issue 

of law that may involve underlying issues of fact. See Berkheimer v. 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 

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

7

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. 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 patenteligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 

78).

The ’237 patent is entitled “Biological Signal Management” and describes methods for selectively transmitting 

or discarding data acquired from a cardiac signal based on 

relevance. The methods begin by receiving a cardiac signal 

and identifying “events” in the received signal. ’237 patent 

col. 8 ll. 34–39. An event is a period in time when the information content of the signal “is deemed to be of increased relevance to a particular purpose.” Id. col. 4 ll. 21–

23. Events are classified into categories based on identified 

characteristics, and what is referred to as a “measure of 

merit” is determined for each event. Id. col. 8 ll. 39–43. A 

measure of merit is “a valuation of an event when applied 

to a particular purpose.” Id. col. 8 ll. 44–46. The measure 

of merit can be based on, among other factors, the severity 

of the event and the amount of noise in the signal during 

the event. Id. col. 10 ll. 52–54. For each event, the measure of merit is compared to a “merit criterion” and, if the 

measure of merit is less than the merit criterion, the event 

is discarded. Id. col. 8 ll. 65–67.

On appeal, CardioNet argues that the asserted claims 

are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to improved 

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

8

electrocardiographic monitoring systems. According to 

CardioNet, the claimed methods increase the relevance of 

data presented to physicians by automatically identifying 

and discarding less clinically-significant events. Even if directed to an abstract idea, CardioNet argues that the measure of merit—a new algorithm “unlike anything available 

in the cardiac-monitoring field”—is an inventive concept 

that transforms the claims into a patent-eligible application. Appellants’ Br. 51.

ScottCare responds that the claims are directed to the 

abstract idea of collecting, classifying, and filtering data. 

And because the claims merely implement those steps using conventional computer technology, ScottCare argues, 

they do not contain an inventive concept.

We agree with ScottCare. For computer-implemented 

method claims, whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one “often turns on whether the 

claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies 

as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely 

as a tool.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 

1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 

Here, the purported improvement is the abstract idea of 

classification and filtering of data, not an improvement in

the functioning of computer capabilities. On their face, the 

claims are directed to collecting (“receiving a cardiac biological signal”), classifying (“classifying the events”), and 

filtering data into groups based on identifying characteristics (“determining a measure of merit,” “comparing the 

measure of merit”), and transmitting the data for review. 

Claims that “merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter 

data” are ineligible for patent under § 101. Intellectual 

Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 

(Fed. Cir. 2017).

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 8 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

9

CardioNet argues that the claims are drawn to specific 

technological improvements, but nothing in the claims requires more than generic data manipulation. For example, 

the written description explains that events can be categorized based on identifying characteristics and includes tables associating exemplary characteristics with event 

categories. ’237 patent col. 4 ll. 34–42. Thus, categorizing 

events amounts to nothing more than matching characteristics to predefined categories. Similarly, the patent discloses two methods for determining the measure of merit. 

Like event categorization, a first method operates based on 

a simple lookup table, where event categories are matched 

to a predetermined grade of severity. Id. col. 9 ll. 59–62. A 

second method determines severity by selecting and applying a particular equation associated with the appropriate

event category. Id col. 10 ll. 4–24. Both methods require 

only basic data processing, and neither is the sort of improvement to computer functionality that can make software claims non-abstract. Accordingly, we conclude that 

the claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, 

classifying, and filtering data.

Having concluded that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we consider whether the claims describe an inventive concept at step two. CardioNet principally argues 

that the “measure of merit” is an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application. However, as explained above, the measure of merit 

amounts at most to the execution of a mathematical formula or selection from a lookup table. The measure of 

merit, then, is no more than a mental process, capable of 

performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, 

and is therefore itself an abstract idea. See Intellectual 

Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). The remaining claim limitations recite 

only routine data manipulation, which can be performed by 

a generic computing device. Accordingly, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, the claims 

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 9 Filed: 07/01/2020
BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE 

CORPORATION

10

recite only the implementation of abstract ideas with conventional techniques and do not recite an inventive concept.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 

court is affirmed as to the ’237, ’850, and ’996 patents, vacated as to the ’207 patent, and remanded for further proceedings on the ’207 patent.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

Case: 19-2263 Document: 55 Page: 10 Filed: 07/01/2020