Opinion ID: 214505
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A method of automatically and electronically

Text: communicating between at least one health-care provider and a plurality of users serviced by the health-care provider, said method comprising the steps of: initiating a communication by one of the plu- rality of users to the provider for information, wherein the provider has established a preexisting medical record for each user; enabling communication by transporting the communication . . . ; electronically comparing content of the com- munication . . . ; returning the response to the communication automatically . . . ; said provider/patient interface providing a fully automated mechanism for generating a per- sonalized page or area within the provider’s Web site for each user serviced by the provider; and said patient-provider interface service center for dynamically assembling and delivering cus- tomer content to said user. ’898 patent col.44 l.60–col.45 l.24 (emphasis added). Epic first moved for summary judgment of nonin- fringement on January 14, 2008, on the issue of joint infringement. The parties do not dispute that Epic’s customers do not directly perform the first step of the asserted method claims, the “initiating a communication” step. The district court, in denying Epic’s motion, relied on BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and found “questions of material 5 MCKESSON TECH v. EPIC SYSTEMS fact remain as to whether the providers using Epic’s MyChart software direct and control the user to perform the first step of the method” based upon an expert declaration filed by McKesson. McKesson Info. Solutions LLC v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 06-cv-2965 (N.D. Ga. May 19, 2008). Following claim construction and the close of discovery, Epic renewed its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the issue of joint infringement, citing both Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and McKesson’s withdrawal of its expert declaration. Epic argued that because its customers neither directly perform the “initiating a communication” step of the asserted method claims nor exercise control or direction over another who performs this step, McKesson failed to demonstrate that a single party directly infringes the ’898 patent and, accordingly, could not have succeeded on its claim of indirect infringement. The district court agreed and granted Epic’s renewed motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on September 8, 2009. Summary Judgment Order. McKesson appealed and this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).